"judge not"

Below is something my pastor wrote last week for a study of Matthew we're doing. This was for chapter 7. I thought it was worth sharing.

Judge Not. For generations the most famous Bible passage was Jesus' beautiful summary of the Gospel in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that He gave Hi only begotten Son, so that whoever believed in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” The last few decades have seen a shift, and now perhaps the most famous passage is Jesus' warning about judgment in 7:1: “Judge not, that you not be judged.” This text is wrongly used as the banner text for lawlessness (called “tolerance”): no one has the right to say anything negative about anyone else's thoughts or words or deeds. There is no judging because there is nothing wrong, nothing bad, nothing evil; the standard of good and right is simply what I want or what I feel like. This is the law of tolerance, we are to tolerate each other's actions, live and let live. But tolerance is not merely passive, we are also supposed to embrace all the nuttiness and flat out wickedness of others. To 'tolerate' gay marriage is to approve of it, anything less is homophobic. To 'tolerate' Islam is to approve it, speak well of it, not be critical, “Judge not!” The only act that is considered 'sinful' is being intolerant.

So we often hear the criticism that the Lord's Church is “judgmental” because it is slavishly bound to the conviction that there is a right and a wrong way to believe, think, speak and live. According to the law of tolerance, if we want to keep the Lord's command and “Judge not,” then we need to jettison the Ten Commandments as a norm for good behavior, in fact, we need to jettison all norms for behavior and life, and tolerate everyone's free choices. It this what Jesus is teaching?

Perhaps the best way to begin an answer is to consider Jesus' own actions. He is, after all, the supreme example of obedience to the Father. His life is, therefore, the perfect picture of what it means to “Judge not.” (This is to be understood absolutely. One of the reasons that we can go about not judging is because we know that the Lord Jesus will do the judging Himself. We can leave it is His hand.) But still the question remains, was Jesus tolerant? We need only think of a few examples to say, “No.” Consider the overturning of the money-changers table, or the “woes” to the Pharisees, or the “Go and sell all you have” to the rich young ruler, or even His teaching in the sermon on the Mount. Does this sound tolerant, “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven... If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off... When you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites... No one can serve two masters... Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye... Beware of false prophets... Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven...” Are these examples of tolerance? Indeed the very idea of a last judgment is anathema to the creed of tolerance.

What begins to emerge, then, is the need to have a better understanding of “not judging.” If “being tolerant” is not the opposite of “not judging,” what is the opposite? The answer Jesus has already given: forgiveness. “If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.” [6:14] Whereas tolerance tries to get around the law by ignoring the law, in the kingdom of heaven the law is triumphed over by the Gospel. “Mercy triumphs over judgment.” [James 2:13] So the law stands (not one jot or tittle is passing away), but the law doesn't have the only word or the last word. “Not judging” means that the Lord's word of life and salvation and the forgiveness of all sins has been heard by us, and then cannot but be spoken by us to our neighbor. We know that the exceeding righteousness and the perfection of the Father has been given to us in spite of our unworthiness; that the Father has withheld, for Christ's sake, the judgment that we deserved because of our sin; that God's affections and actions toward us are full of love and compassion and mercy and forgiveness, and therefore, as His children, our affections and actions towards our neighbors ought to look the same.

On the other hand, if our attitude toward our neighbors reflects a harshness and criticalness and an unwillingness to help, that same measure of judgment will be turned onto us by our heavenly Father. “For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you.” [7:2] We should not be poking around, looking for our neighbor's flaws, speck hunting, trying to 'help' them by showing them their sinfulness and unworthiness. Jesus uses the parable of the plank and the speck to explain. It is the height of foolishness for a man with a plank or a beam stuck in his eye to attempt to help his neighbor dig a speck out of his own eye. This is like the man who goes, uninvited, to help his neighbor fix a leak in the faucet while his own basement is flooding. “Tend to your own unrighteousness first,” Jesus is saying. “Judge yourself, and then you will find reason for mercy and compassion.” All of our judging is to be tempered with mercy.

This also helps make sense of all the passages in the Scriptures that command us to make judgments. For example:

St John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

1 Corinthians 5:11-13 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. (12) For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? (13) But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. We see this teaching of Jesus reflected in the apostles. (See also Romans 2:1; 1 Corinthians 4:5; James 2:8-13)

Romans 14:10-13 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. (11) For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. (12) So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. (13) Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

James 4:11-12 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. (12) There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

unconditional love?

Today Dennis Prager is questioning where the idea came that unconditional love is a desirable quality in people. It's an interesting question. I suppose it depends on how you define unconditional love. But in its strictest sense, it seems to me that even God does not exhibit unconditional love. The Bible describes God as hating some people. And I doubt He loves Satan.

However, being a father, I can say that it seems that I have unconditional love for my children. Although, maybe there is a condition: that they be my offspring. And since that's a condition that is inseverable, the love always remains. And in a sense, it's the same way for us as God's adopted children. Well, maybe not. We still have the freedom and reject God and thereby face his rejection.

the Trinity: one + one + one = one?

Last month contained the day in the church year called Trinity Sunday. My pastor included these statements in his sermon that day:

First, what is the teaching of the Trinity? There is one God in three persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, but there are not three gods but one God. We worship the Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity. Who can understand this? One + one + one = one. This is incomprehensible. God has not given us minds to comprehend this; only hearts to believe it and mouths to confess it. (Pastor Byran Wolfmueller)

I really like my pastor and learn a lot from him, but I don't like the way he characterized this. One + one + one is not incomprehensible because our minds are lacking. It is incomprehensible because it is logically impossible. Not even God can understand something that is logically impossible.

Comprehension means to take in the meaning, nature, or importance of something -- to grasp it. If something is incomprehensible, its meaning, nature, or importance are not knowable. So one has to wonder, if the content of the teaching of the Trinity is incomprehensible, does the "teaching" really teach us anything? Incomprehensible words, by definition, bring us no closer to understanding the nature of something than we had prior to hearing them.

If someone told me that, all things being equal, three objects weighed one pound each, but together also only weighed one pound, he would be telling me something inconsistent with logic and the concept of weight. While one can say that to believe such a thing would require "faith," I would question whether such faith was really a belief in something, or merely a rejection of logic and mathematics. If I had to do something that required an accurate perception of the weight characteristics of these objects, I would have to ignore at least one of three things: (1) I would have to ignore the knowledge that their quantity was three and that they each weighed one pound, or (2) I would have to ignore the knowledge that in total they weighed one pound, or (3) I would have to ignore mathematics. If I ignored none of these, and claimed "faith" in all of them, I would be no closer to grasping the nature of the objects than I was before, because these pieces of knowledge are inconsistent. Such "faith" would be merely an exercise in justifying belief in things absurd. (And once you open that Pandora's Box, the distinction between knowledge and ignorance evaporates.)

The doctrine of the Trinity uses the concept of quantity, and uses numbers as a means of qualifying quantity. If the numbers used violate the most rudimentary concepts of mathematics, then they must not be numbers as we understand numbers. And if someone talks to me about such numbers, they might as well refer to them using nonsense words, because I don't have any idea what they are. Using numeric terminology will only send me down the (apparently wrong) path of trying to integrate them into what I already know about numbers.

Now lest you think I'm arguing against the doctrine of the Trinity, I'm not. I'm merely arguing against this type of characterization of it.

I read a thought provoking book by RC Sproul a while back called Not a Chance. It contains the following passage on the topic of the Trinity which I found quite helpful:

Christianity rests on two profoundly important and profoundly difficult paradoxes that remain mysteries: the Trinity and the Incarnation. Classically, the Trinity was defined in these terms:

God is one in essence
and
three in person.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard or seen this formulation described as a "contradiction." Why is it called a contradiction? We are accustomed to thinking in terms of "One person equals one essence." This equation may be a convenient one, but it's not a rationally necessary one. The Trinity is indeed unusual and mysterious, but it is not inherently or analytically irrational.

If the formulation for the Trinity asserted that God is one in essence and three in essence or that he is three in person and one in person, we would be engaging in the nonsense of contradiction. Something cannot be one in A and three in A at the same time and in the same relationship. That's a contradiction.

The classical formulation of the Trinity is that God is one in one thing (one in A, essence) and three in a different thing (three in B, persona). The Church Fathers were careful not to formulate the nature of God in contradictory terms. . .

The formula is not meant to say that essence and person are the same things. Essence refers to the being of God, while person is used here as subsistence within being. Essence is primary and persona is secondary. Essence is the similarity, while persona is the dissimilarity in the nature of God. He is unified in one essence, but diversified in three persona.