“Judge not, lest ye be judged”—that’s how the Authorized Version puts one of our culture’s most quoted saying. It carries great authority because Jesus said it. But what does it mean?
Surely Jesus did not mean we should not discern the validity or usefulness of ideas or actions. Otherwise, inhaling the vapors of a boiled newborn bat, as one translated Egyptian hieroglyphic prescribes as a cure for the flu, would be as valid as the prescription your doctor recommends when you get sick. “Judge not,” does not mean we should never evaluate, compare, discern, distinguish, differentiate, appraise, or calculate. It does not mean we cannot decide for ourselves what kinds of habits lead to the well-being of an individual or a society. Indeed, the Bible teaches readers to pursue wisdom by discerning, developing, evaluating, considering, pondering, reflecting, and reasoning.
What then does it mean to ‘judge not’ in our politically polarized society? Quite simply this: that we refrain from condemnation, and nowhere is this more important than on the issue of same-sex marriage.
This issue is provoking a major crisis among Christians, with both sides wondering how there could ever be any ambiguity about an issue that is so clear-cut. The liberal side sees a person’s freedom to marry whomever they wish as a kind of inalienable right, the denial of which it traces to such unsavory motives as fear, bigotry, and hatred. The conservative side appeals to Holy Scripture and to what it regards as the givenness of the natural order of things, the structures of which no civilization prior to our own has ever hazarded to redefine.
They have exposed our current deficit of serious thought.
In many ways, this dispute is an unintended byproduct of the Protestant Reformation. In their dispute against Roman Catholicism, the reformers argued that Holy Scripture had greater authority than the traditions of the church, something they also said about Reason during the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries. Gradually though, many Protestants, especially Evangelicals, came to express an outright disdain for reason and tradition, leaving scripture as their only legitimate authority on matters of doctrine and morals. The result was that they were left with a blank command, but no rationale to back it up, and so no basis upon which to engage in intelligent discussion about it with the surrounding culture.
This is one of the reasons why matters of sexual ethics have provoked so much anger in Christian circles. They have exposed our current deficit of serious thought. Social conservatism has turned out to be a woefully inadequate defense. Social mores are shifting and will continue to shift. But since such conservativism is the real religion of many church leaders, the pragmatic requirements for keeping their religious institutions afloat will lead them to first remain silent about sexual issues and finally to a quiet capitulation to the demands of the broader culture. The conversion of these leaders will not be because of any reasoned argument they have carefully considered, but from lack of any legitimate reason for their present, but silent, convictions.
A new generation smells something rotting.
The website for New Temple Evangelical contains the words “Faith, Reason, Tradition,” and this is no accident. For Protestants living in a post-Enlightenment world, “the Bible told me so” is no longer sufficient. For we must be able to show that our understanding of the scripture is in harmony with that of the larger Church (capital C). And if we are unable to give a reason why we regard these documents as authoritative, then the moral convictions based on them have no more weight than that of any other sectarian group.
I remain constrained by the boundaries established by a community, a book, and a given natural order.
We must be humble, not triumphalist, in our Protestantism.
On this path, we will hear our Lord’s command to “judge not.” We will acknowledge that human beings are incapable of knowing the motivations, the subjective experiences or the eternal destination of others. We will listen respectfully to the stories of others. We will ask them questions that will deepen our understanding. At the same time, we will remind those on the other side that we are trying to remain under the authority of our Creator, the Holy Scriptures, and the traditions of the Church.
I have listened to a lot of gay people tell stories that broke my heart. It is my duty to love them and not abuse them. I do not want to cause them any pain. My sin is not less than theirs, and I am in no less need of God’s grace than they. I welcome them to walk toward heaven with me. Furthermore, I acknowledge that among their number have been many great Christians, past and present, who have struggled secretly with desires they could not name for fear of rejection or even persecution.
Nonetheless, I remain constrained by the boundaries established by a community, a book, and a given natural order which I did not create and am not in a position to amend. These form an authority I cannot violate without undermining the whole of everything else that rests upon them.
Jesus—not Caesar, nor even the enlightened democratic republic—is Lord.
Comments