Judgment None of My Business
by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 09/26/2007 at 12:33 AM
I appreciated the discussion generated by Collin Hansen's profile of pastor Mark Driscoll. Some of you wholeheartedly supported his methods of inviting unbelievers into the fold. Others pointed out that he might be compromising by dabbling in worldly practices.
For me, this brings up a related issue: What should be the church's response to unbelievers living in sin? To what extent should we welcome them into our congregations and ministries? Have you ever had that uncomfortable feeling when an unbelieving friend acts...unredeemed? Once I was driving a couple of friends to church. My unbelieving friend started talking about a horror movie. I tried to redirect the unedifying conversation, but the damage was done. My Christian friend and I felt that our morning worship had been tainted.
When it comes to associating with sinners, Paul is pretty clear. We must offer accountability to those who claim to be followers of Jesus; but we exert no authority over those who are, as of yet, unaccountable to God's commands. Consider 1 Corinthians 5:9-13:
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
Paul is emphatic that he is not discouraging association with immoral people who have no relationship with Jesus Christ. And yet, sadly, I've seen Christians circle up and exclude these very people. We may say it is for the sake of "unity," but the real issue seems to be comfort. It is a sacrifice to run the risk of hearing an inappropriate anecdote on the way to church...or have someone's smoke in your face at Bible study. "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?" Paul says. This doesn't condone joining them in their sinful activities, but it does seem like we have freedom to associate with those whose lifestyles don't reflect Christ without passing judgment. Our judgment should be reserved for the Christian brother.
Have you experienced discomfort in knowing how to relate to the immoral? What does it look like to withhold judgment of those outside the Body of Christ? Judging those within the church is a blog for another day, but the flip-side offers plenty to think about.
1. Keb said the following at 7:33 AM on Sep 26:
A lot of the friction that seems to exist between Christians and other people would probably be diminished if our love came out clearer than our judgements. Jesus' warning about judging, judge not lest ye be judged also, was a warning against hypocrisy. If you spend all day telling other people how immoral, wrong, and flawed they are, even if you're right, then they're going to jump at the first crack they see in your own behavior, however small it would otherwise be.
Those who do not share our beliefs about God really have no reason to accept judgements made on the basis of the Bible (or other religious traditions). Why should they? And who am I to tell them, unasked, how wrong they are?
That doesn't mean we can't use personal judgement about whom to associate with or vote for. It does mean that we should focus more on our own behavior and love than on the sins of others.
2. Leah said the following at 7:37 AM on Sep 26:
Heh... I was about to bring up that 1 Cor 5 passage... but you did it yourself :P I think this whole issue is quite self explanatory. If a Christian is living in constant unrepentant sin and will not change after you and others confront him, have nothing to do with him. If a non-Christian is living in unrepentant sin, well- HELLO!- that's what non-Christians do. Invite them to church! That's what church is there for. (Well, one of the reasons. You know what I'm getting at).
3. nikki said the following at 8:24 AM on Sep 26:
I'm glad someone else said this, and I'm double-glad to see it in Corinthians! :) I really never saw it there before. I've always thought that the behavior of a nonbeliever is not something that I need to correct. What good would it do? I should pray that God will change their hearts and, if the change is sincere, behavior will change as well. It might offend my sense of decency to hear a crude tale but it is not my job to keep away from everything, and everyone, who might be personally offensive. (A fellow Christian is a whole 'nother story.)
As for allowing unbelievers to associate with us churchgoers...well, to be honest, I never heard of anyone knocking that until I saw it here. I wonder where the unbelievers are supposed to hear the truth if they can't associate with the truth-givers? Are we now so hung up on smoking and drinking that we can't stand to be around people (who never claimed to know God) who do those things? I can't believe it has come to this. (Not saying I have any deep moral convictions against smoking or drinking, either.) We need to stop focusing on what they are doing, and also, by the same reasoning, what WE are doing, and start figuring out how to love them. "They will know you are Christians by your love." That doesn't include the fact that you don't drink or smoke or dance. That's the standard we've invented to "set ourselves apart." And it's a really lousy standard that gets us in trouble. What will we do when we realize we're adhering to extrabiblical rules to make us look more like believers? When those standards are gone, what will we do to show we're different? No, the real dividing line should be our love. That can't be duplicated, and if we're doing our jobs loving people, we won't have to rely on outward appearances to demonstrate our holiness.
4. Jamie Morton said the following at 9:24 AM on Sep 26:
Doesn't this mean that we shouldn't try to impose our Christian morality on the secular masses by legislating morality? If we have no right to demand that non-Christians follow our moral guidelines, why are we still so condemnatory, particularly towards homosexuals? What business is it of ours?
5. Seth said the following at 10:04 AM on Sep 26:
Sin is like touching a hot burner. You may be curious and it may look kind of neat and then you touch it and it hurts you in some way every time. Why wouldn't you want to try and keep people safe from hurting themselves and others by a law? Do you want to repeal laws against murder as well?
6. nikki said the following at 10:20 AM on Sep 26:
I think the line between legislating morality and legislating good policy is a fuzzy one. There's a lot of overlap and it's a kind of subjective line to begin with. But good legislation always provides some kind of benefit, security, or safety from something. It works towards the betterment of society. A law that exists just to keep a wrong from being done, and carries no social benefits, would probably be simple morality on a large scale, and that is probably wrong. All laws carry some inherent judge of morality, but good laws are based on the common good. What is good for society is almost always what is "moral" anyways, so the two don't have to be exclusive by any means.
7. Canadian Boy said the following at 11:11 AM on Sep 26:
Fully agree with Jamie. Any chance of getting Matt Kaufman's opinion on this? He's written several articles (Jesus Loves Pornstars, Gays vs. The Garden Guys) that seem to be pro-non-Christian-judging.
Just as an aside, I don't believe in "judging" my Christian brothers and sisters. I believe I should help them stay accountable to God. But I find that judging often leads to me judtifying my own sin, since at least I'm not as bad as so-and-so.
8. Christina said the following at 11:32 AM on Sep 26:
When it comes to non-christians and judging them, I don't seem to have a problem.
It comes naturally to me to let them know that I don't think what they're doing is right and then carry on with our relationship. My goal isn't to get them to stop what they are doing at that point. My goal is to build a relationship with them where I can be free to share with them my relationship with Christ.
If/when they accept Christ, then I'd be ready to wait and pray and see if their life changes. If it doesn't, then I start sharing that part with them - holding them accountable.
But until they accept Christ, they are not held to my moral code by any beliefs that they may hold and I should not expect them to hold to that moral code.
9. Anastasia said the following at 11:33 AM on Sep 26:
Let me get this straight.
The author and a friend are bringing someone else to church who is not a Christian, and they were surprised and/or affected by his discussion of a horror movie?
oi, give me a break!
10. k. said the following at 12:13 PM on Sep 26:
Someone talking about a horror movie on the way to church: not taint-worthy.
Someone chasing you with a chainsaw on your way to church: now THAT is taint-worthy.
Oy.
11. Suzanne said the following at 12:31 PM on Sep 26:
Yes, I offered a fairly superficial example. But for someone who was raised to prepare her heart for worship on the the way to church, a graphic description of a scene from a horror movie wasn't my ideal start to the Lord's Day. I figured maybe others could relate.
12. Canadian Boy said the following at 4:01 PM on Sep 26:
"Someone chasing you with a chainsaw on your way to church: now THAT is taint-worthy."
But, by-golly, imagine what that could do to attendance if we chased people into church with chainsaws!
13. Mike Theemling said the following at 4:26 PM on Sep 26:
I've heard it said the most quoted Bible verse used to be John 3:16. But it has been surpassed by Matt 7:1 ("Do not judge, or you too will be judged")
There seems to be this bad theology floating around that Christians are in no position to judge other people and that is not true (Suzanne, if that is not your position, the title certainly sounds like it).
Look at the rest of Matthew 7 in context:
For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."
We see two things here. First, is that before one starts criticizing others they need to do some self-analysis first. "Then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye". Also, it talks about throwing pearls to pigs. Most wonder, "What the heck does that mean?" It means that there is no point in giving something valuable (in this case judgement) to someone who will not receive it positively. It does not negate correcting or "judging" people who are in sin as long as we do it with the right heart.
Consider Jesus' guidance about resolving conflicts with a brother:
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
The fact you are "showing someone his fault" sounds like judging to me.
Some may argue that this was talking about sins among believers and not about dealing with unbelievers and would agree that it was probably the case. But consider the times in Acts where Peter would speak to unbelievers admonishing them to repent of their sin. He spoke to a group of unbelievers in Acts 2, and in Acts 3 after he healed a beggar.
Finally consider 2 Tim 3:16-17:
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting (emphasis mine) and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Bottom line is that notion that Christians should "never judge" is incorrect. However, there is a distinct difference between judging in terms of the final Judgment that only God (Jesus) performs and the correcting/rebuking type that we as Christians need to do when appropriate and with the right heart.
14. Jo said the following at 5:21 PM on Sep 26:
Following on from what Mike Theemling said.. there's a difference I think between judging SIN and judging PEOPLE. We are called to be discerning, we should be recognising sin as sin. We judge that sexual immorality is wrong, for example, and that judgment (as with all others) should be based on God's word. That kind of judgment is applicable whether we're talking about believers or non-believers.
However, judging a person is different. When I judge that non-Christian friend A is being sexually immoral, I may or may not give her my opinion (usually only if she asks), but I will not follow that judgment with a judgment on her as a person, eg: "therefore I will no longer spend time with you, since you are immoral".
If Christian friend B is being sexually immoral, though, the situation is different. If this is a person who is a new creation in Christ, who is being changed by the Holy Spirit and who knows and understands God's view of sex and immorality, there are questions to be asked. Friend B needs to be challenged. And if Friend B refuses to acknowledge her sin and repent, the Bible says I should not associate with her.
Why not? It's a tough one. I would find this extremely difficult to do, but Paul is pretty clear. With such a person do not even eat. I don't think it's because she's sinning, since we all do that. I think it's to do with the fact that after she has been challenged and corrected and after her sin has been shown to her with Scripture, she still refuses to 'turn from her sin' and repent. It's not the same with someone who is repenting and trying to live differently but struggling and not always managing it. It's also not the same as the sin of someone who is a non-believer, or who is searching but has not yet made a commitment. This is blatant disrespect for God, from someone who claims to be a Christian. When you put it like that it does sound pretty bad, and Paul's instructions seem less extreme.
15. Joseph said the following at 6:24 PM on Sep 26:
I failed to see what all the controversy was about his methods. Allowing people to smoke at a off campus outreach... sounds like good outreach to me.
Granted there was a heading in the article/profile that he was known as the cursing pastor, I think that is crossing the line but simply reaching out whole heartedly I think is what the Church ought to be more actively.
16. Leah said the following at 6:02 AM on Sep 27:
Jamie Morton- I think you're missing the point.
"Doesn't this mean that we shouldn't try to impose our Christian morality on the secular masses by legislating morality? If we have no right to demand that non-Christians follow our moral guidelines, why are we still so condemnatory, particularly towards homosexuals? What business is it of ours?"
No, no, and no. Should we impose our morality on the secular masses by legislating morality? We do not legislate *morality*. We legislate (or try to legislate) how God wants us to live. This is good and right. Outside of earthly law, we should not JUDGE non-Christians who live "immorally", but we can certainly still try to influence them away from immoral behaviour.
"If we have no right to demand that non-Christians follow our moral guidelines, why are we still so condemnatory, particularly towards homosexuals?"
a) We have no right to DEMAND anything. We can still democratically try to change things though.
b) We should not be condemnatory to anyone for anything. That is God's role.
17. Suzanne said the following at 8:06 AM on Sep 27:
Mike,
I made it pretty clear that judgment of the Christian brother was legitimate. I was only pointing out that sometimes we extend our judgment outside of the boundaries specified.
18. John said the following at 6:49 PM on Sep 28:
Judging rightly is biblical.
Not judging at all, ever, is not biblical and impossible.
Next time someone starts to talk about something unedifying on the way to church, tell them not to. You have more than just as much a right to NOT hear what they are saying than they have of even saying it in the first place.
That's something I like about my pastor. He's not a milk toast Christian that allows non-believers to set the terms of discussion or interaction. He's not rude or confrontational, he's just not going to be a door mat.
Take people to church, by all means, but that doesn't mean just because they're not reverant to the things of the Lord, doesn't mean you can't intimate or outright explain to them expected behavior.
I remember a handful of non-believers were invited to church by someone in the church and they talked the entire service, which is rude in secular settings. I can't even remember what the service was about because they sat a couple seats behind me and distracted me the entire time.
Since then I've made the deacons do their job. I was new and didn't know where they came from, but I've been there a while and won't put up with nonsense like that anymore.
19. Denise said the following at 1:23 PM on May 23:
So does this mean my husband shouldn't go to lunch with his "Christian" friend who committed adultry 3 + times, been involved with pornography etc., and is now divorcing his wife?