Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Examining Matthew 7:1

    “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.” — Matthew 7:1 (NRSV)

    I have often called this little verse the most violated verse in the New Testament. Christians regularly take it upon themselves to judge one another and also to judge non-Christians. At the same time, this is one of the most misinterpreted verses on the New Testament, and perhaps those two factors come together. When we cannot be sure just what a text means, it’s quite possible we’ll find it hard to obey.

    Some Christians treat this as a command to shut down their brains. No judgment, no opinion, no decision can be criticized, especially when made by someone else who claims to be a Christian. In the eyes of this group of Christians it is especially wrong to judge whether someone is or is not a Christian. Thus if a politician claims to be born again, they are likely to provide support. How can you question this person’s sincere testimony? It is also wrong, according to this view, to make a judgment about a ministry and whether it is serving God or not. Any form of criticism is called “going against God’s anointed” and is regarded as a dangerous sin.

    Under this view, church pastors and leaders of ministries can often get by with very dangerous teachings and grievous sins because the membership feels that they cannot come to a decision, cannot judge, and cannot come to a verdict. Often people will continue to support a ministry concerning which they have serious questions because they are afraid of violating the command not to judge.

    On the other hand we have a group of folks who go straight to Matthew 7:15-20. “Not so,” they say to the first group. “You can’t judge, but you can inspect fruit.” And it turns out that in this view there is really nothing that is actually forbidden; you just have to rename it. Am I judging a pastor when I accuse him of heresy? No, I’m not. I’m just inspecting the fruit. Is the church board judging when it removes someone from a church office because of an offense? No, they are just exercising their job and inspecting the fruit. Is the church congregation judging when they hound someone caught in sexual sin out of the church? No, they just inspected the fruit and then made sure that the body of Christ in their congregation was pure, that the sin was eliminated.

    Many readers will likely complain at this point that I have mixed good and bad examples together on both sides, and I do believe that I have done precisely that. The point is that we have two ways in view here of missing the point. The first group makes Matthew 7:1 an absolute, irrespective of other commands, and if they carry their view to its logical conclusion (fortunately few do), they can make it impossible to act either as individuals or as a church congregation. The second group really can’t live with Matthew 7:1, so they have found a ready made excuse in “fruit inspection.” The result in their case can be dissension and destruction of spiritual lives, and may even extend to the destruction of physical lives.

    I’d like to recommend my essay on wisdom literature, and particularly the part about the toolkit. I recommend that when you find two passages of scripture recommending radically different courses of action, you check to see if the toolkit metaphor will help untangle the situation.

    Those who try to solve the problems of Matthew 7:1 by using Matthew 7:15-20 as an exception have some difficulty here. If you look at the context of Matthew 7:1 by reading on into verse two, you find the reasoning behind the command in the first verse. You’re going to get judged in the way that you judge. So how do you want to be judged? But you could apply the same reasoning to fruit inspection. According to the standards you use in fruit inspection, you’re going to have your fruit inspected. Do you like this second possibility any better than the first?

    Then you might consider the skeptical position. Isn’t Matthew 7:1 an example of moral cowardice? If you just don’t pass judgment on anyone else, they’ll let you by with everything too. Do you think that is what Jesus was aiming at here? Especially considering the rest of the chapter, I think not.

    That’s why I brought up interpreting proverbs, even though this isn’t precisely a collection of proverbs. A proverb states something briefly, but doesn’t have time or space to deal with all the circumstances, the possible exceptions, and the nuances. It provides a general rule. When we come upon this, we have to first consider the precise meaning of the statement, then look at the circumstances, and then see what task this tool fits.

    Now if you’re following through on some of my study methods, this would be a good time to read through the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7) a couple of times, and then also to compare several translations of Matthew 7:1. The CEV and The Message both have interesting perspectives on this verse. I have looked at the uses of the Greek word for “judge” in this passage, but I’m not going to use them in my discussion.

    I think we can get what we need simply by using the context and being careful with our definitions of English words. Let’s start by looking at the word judge. What options does this word bring to mind? What are the various things we migh call “judging?” What we’re doing here is getting the range of meaning that the word has. Amongst the common uses you may think of are:

    1. Acting as a judge in a court.
    2. Making decisions between different actions or courses of action
    3. Criticizing
    4. Condemning
    5. Passing out punishment
    6. Discriminating
    7. Choosing

    We should notice that item #1, acting as a judge, generally involves all of the activities I listed.

    So what is it that Jesus is telling us not to do? If we continue reading verses 2-4 we’ll find first that we are going to receive judgment in the way that we judge. Then in verse 3 and 4, we are pointed to the odd situation of how small our own defects can seem beside what appear to us huge defects in our neighbor. Jesus very quickly provides the context for his short, pithy statement. He’s talking about criticizing and condemning one another. So we eliminate the options of simply acting as a judge or making decisions about one’s life; these are not what Jesus is talking about. We’re specifically concerned with how we relate to one another in our community.

    That still leaves some questions. We get to verse 15, and we find that we are to be wary of false prophets. OK, in this case, if someone in the community claims to be a prophet, and they are not, then there is an action that we must take. We are now required to be critical–use critical judgment on–a member of the community and keep away from them under a particular set of circumstances. If I might call in an Old Testament context here, Deuteronomy 13 comes to mind, in which one is commanded to pass judgment on a false prophet, defined there as one who tells you to worship other gods, and to condemn such a person to death. Jesus doesn’t specify any penalty here, other than to be wary of them.

    He also tells us how we are to locate them–by their fruits. The specific example of false prophets is used, but do you think this might apply to other people who are bringing a false message? Jesus is telling us that there is a need to be wary. In fact, if you continue through the chapter, verses 21-23 tell us that there will be people who show signs of being followers of Jesus, and who turn out not to be followers. Their fruit does not include obedience to Jesus.

    Time to bring out the toolkit again! I think we can all recall circumstances in which the ministry of a church was severely damaged by either extreme that I’ve mentioned. But I would suggest its not merely an extreme; it’s not merely that you need to find some sort of balance between forgiveness and criticism. What’s needed is wisdom and discernment to appy the right tool at the right time. And I would suggest that Matthew 7:15-20 provides us a way to discover which tool is to be used. Simply ask the question, which is going to produce the best fruit?

    It may be that sin needs to be removed from the congregation in order for the kingdom to be built. But beware of using condemnation to make your life more comfortable. What will forgiveness accomplish? What can be done by taking a stand? To belabor my point about definitions, before you decide whether your tool is tolerance (judge not) or fruit inspection (be very careful), you need to judge the situation wisely.

    God has given you a toolkit, but you have to judge the right tool for the job.

  • Essay on Interpreting Wisdom Literature Posted

    I have now added an essay on interpreting wisdom literature to my set of very basic interpretation essays. This essay was already supposed to be there, and had links to it, but it hadn’t been posted. One by one I’m filling the holes in the participatory study method files. I have quite a bit of information to add to the Isaiah and Acts outlines as I get time to polish it a bit, format it, and get it online.

  • Devotionals on Mark

    Recently I have been writing a number of devotionals for my wife Jody to use on her devotional list. Since one of my devotional readings right now is working through the book of Mark, I thought some readers of this blog might be interested. You can find these entries starting at: Monday Morning Devotion 7/31/06. There may be others interspersed. I’ll be reading in Mark 6 this morning and writing, though those devotionals may not appear on the list for some time.

    These are devotional thoughts and not exegetical notes. The purpose of the devotional list is quite different from this blog.

  • On Being a Love Preacher

    I’ve been talking about the incarnation and the two laws, and placing the concept of love at the center of Christianity. There are those who think that preaching love is somehow a weak form of Christianity, and a soft form of ethics. “All you need is love” is not regarded as a particularly profound message. “There’s lots more to it than just love,” I’ve been told.

    But I don’t think so. I think love requires some definition, because not everything we call love actually is. There are lots of details required to implement love. But love is the key, and love is anything but easy.

    My pastor this morning referred to the “cliche of ‘What Would Jesus Do?’” And indeed WWJD has become a cliche, with just about anything you might want to justify being explained as, of course, precisely what Jesus would do. And in practice WWJD has become something of a cliche, and unfortunately, in general people claim that Jesus would do whatever it was they wanted to do anyhow.

    But what would Jesus actually do? Well, we can get some idea from the gospel of John. (This message is scattered throughout scripture, but I’m using the passage in which it is most clearly stated.) Jesus gave up his life for his friends. And then he gave a command:

    12This is my command, that you love one another just as I loved you. 13Nobody has greater love than this, that he lays down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do that which I command you. — John 15:12-14 (TFBV, or see the CEV using BibleGateway.com)

    What would Jesus do? Well, he did give his life for his friends. And he did provide that to his disciples as a definition of love, of the love that they were to carry out.

    Now which is easier?

    • Believe a set of doctrines so that despite whatever you may do, you will still be saved and live eternally?
    • Put your trust in God and let him transform your life so that you exemplify this love, that is exemplify what Jesus would do?

    I think the easy road out is option ‘a’. We would really rather not be confronted with what Jesus actually would do in most circumstances.

    But that, I believe, is the challenge of the gospel.

  • Does Fear Favor the Republicans?

    George McGovern isn’t my very most favorite person, but he is quoted in Newsweek saying this:

    Reached by NEWSWEEK on vacation, McGovern offered Democrats a warning. “For 50 years, [Republicans] used the fear of communism to beat Democrats,” he said. “I hope we don’t have 50 years of terrorism for them to do the same thing.”

    The article, titled Campaign 2006: A Hawk Stays Aloft, is about a boost for Lieberman’s campaign because of the recent hijacking scare.

    But simply admonishing people not to vote out of fear is not enough. If you vote for a candidate because his opponent doesn’t have a plan to deal with a major threat, then are you voting out of fear, or out of prudence? And that’s where I, as an independent, am not seeing what I would like to see out of the democrats thus far. What is the positive plan to make things better? I like what I read in the referenced article about Lamont planning to redeploy troops he would withdraw from Iraq, placing them elsewhere in the Middle East. That’s a good start.

    But we need some other specifics. I know politicians are afraid of specifics. But we have choices to make about screening technology, profiling, or other approaches to airport security. We have choices to make about searches and seizures domestically and what is the appropriate legal strategy. I’m fairly sure from the rumblings that there are both Democrats and Republicans out there with a variety of ideas. Perhaps it is simply the media that is stuck at the simplest level, keeping its focus on the war in Iraq, yes or no.

    I personally would oppose a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but I think we need to set a realistic set of goals and a realistic strategy to attain them, and withdraw as soon as those goals are accomplished. The following statement, quoted from the same article, frightens me with its naivete:

    “If you have Lamont Democrats who say, ‘Bring ’em home, turn away and it will all be over’ … the American people say, ‘You’re kidding yourself’ … The only way you walk away from war is as a victor,” said a senior administration official who asked for anonymity speaking about the politics of national security.

    The problem is with definition. What is victory? If we intend to leave a country that is friendly to the United States, a full ally in the war on terror, has a stable government, and is prepared to stand up to neighbors such as Iran, then we are deluding ourselves. It’s not going to happen. We need realistic goals–and most of the realistic ones have already been accomplished–and then we need to move on. We don’t have unlimited resources.

  • Christ’s Restraining Love

    12We’re not recommending ourselves to you again, but we’re giving you an excuse to boast about us again, so that you may have a response to those who boast in appearance and not in the heart. 13For if we are out of our minds, it’s for God, if we are wise, it’s for you. 14For the love of Christ keeps us on track, because we judge that one has died for all, therefore all have died. 15And one died for everyone, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves, but rather for the one who died and was raised. — 2 Corinthians 5:12-15 (TFBV)

    Look at the CEV as well: 2 Corinthians 5:12-15 (CEV). (I’m going to make a practice of helping people practice what I preach. Due to copyright concerns on the amount of Bible that I quote online, I generally use my own translations for reference, and I post these in my totally free Bible version project. But it is a project not a translation, and is not even intended to replace any existing translations. What the project does is allow me to have all my working translations, going back more than 20 years, in one place, and to use them as placeholders for commentary. So to help people practice what I preach, I’m going to link to a favored translation on Bible Gateway as I’ve done above.)

    Over on my Threads from Henry’s Web blog I’ve been discussing essentials of the Christian faith. In addition, in a discussion sparked for me, at least, by Peter Kirk (latest post and by lingamish (Is charismatic a slur?), we’ve been discussing “charismatics” and the gifts of the Spirit.

    In looking at this short passage I’d like to tie these together just a bit. To me the gospel has a simple core, which is God’s presence in the world through Jesus Christ for the purpose of redeeming the world. That core can be expanded and discussed until the universe comes to an end and beyond, but the center remains simple. A good Christianity, then, is Christ centered, and a Christianity that is off-target is one that is no longer Christ-centered.

    That’s Paul’s message here. I translated it, “The love of Christ keeps us on track.” The CEV has “We are ruled by Christ’s love for us.” In either case, Christ’s love is defining. Now go back one verse, where I translate “If we are out of our minds, it’s for God.” The CEV adds the word “seem” there, and I think there’s some justification. But the relationship is that anything that we do that might seem crazy is done in relationship to God. Christ’s love, which is God’s love manifested in Jesus the Christ, is what puts the restraint on it. That’s why in the second part of the verse Paul’s says that if we seem (or are) in our right minds, it’s for you.

    The controlling factor is the love of Christ, shown to us, that “keeps us on track” or “rules us” and makes us keep our focus on the people we serve or to whom we minister.

    Seemingly good theology, or seemingly good spiritual gifts, or anything “seemingly good” can be destructive. What constrains it (ASV), what “keeps it on track,” what “rules it,” is the love of Christ, specifically incarnational love.

    I was visiting a United Methodist Church that had a history of being very charismatic. I was soon going to teach there, and I simply wanted to get a feel for the congregation. I was asked to talk about spiritual gifts in a Sunday School class. In that class was a couple who would not identify any spiritual gifts that they believed they had received. With very little encouragement others in the class commented on their service, their hospitality, their helping, and so forth. After the class they came to me in tears and said that they had felt like second class citizens because they did not speak in tongues. Nobody was telling them they had to, but there was an atmosphere that suggested that the really spiritual people spoke in tongues.

    Now I don’t want anyone to be less joyful in the gifts that God has given you, but people in that church who were rejoicing in their own gifts were failing in the second half–being wise for the sake of others. The love of Christ keeps our practice of the gifts on track. It’s no accident that we see this command here, and it’s no accident that in 1 Corinthians, chapter 13 is placed between 12 & 14. The love of Christ keeps us on track!

    There is one more point I’d like to make from this passage. Paul doesn’t just refer to the death of Jesus, but also to his resurrection, the power of life that was in him. We can take the fruit of the Spirit as an ethical mandate, but as such it’s always going to seem a bit limp and ineffective. But when we empower the fruit, especially love, with the presence of the Holy Spirit manifested in the gifts of the Spirit, we will have ministry in power. Fruit alone, as a dry ethical mandate will be insufficient. Gifts alone will be powerfully dangerous. Gifts ruled by fruit are just powerfully good.

  • Don’t Cover Evidence

    The Telegraph reports that some evangelicals in Kenya are trying to sideline exhibits on the evolution of human beings from Kenya’s national museum. In a story, Evangelicals urge museum to hide man’s ancestors, it is reported that the churches want those exhibits removed and intend a campaign to persuade the museum to do so.

    Folks, this is a way that Christians can prove themselves to be stupid and dishonest at one and the same time. Can there be any good reason to hide the evidence or to try to prevent people from seeing it? This is not an action that will be advantageous to the kingdom of God. It is simply “putting a stumbling block” in front of those who might otherwise be inclined to accept the gospel message.

    I sincerely hope that Kenya’s national museum will resist this campaign, and that the Christian leaders involved will think better of this activity.

  • Moderate Christian Blog Aggregator

    I’ve just created a blog aggregator specifically for Christian blogs. This is the result of recent questions from people looking for more moderate Christian presence on the internet. While I am happy to work with conservative or liberal groups whenever that is possible, I’d like to have a single place to look for commentary and information from a moderate Christian perspective.

    I still intend to participate in the Methodist blogosphere, and have actually been spending more time looking at the various Methodist/Wesleyan blogs, commenting, and sometimes linking to them. But this aggregator is for moderates of a variety of theological traditions.

    Right now I only have blogs with which I am involved in the aggregator, but I hope this will change substantially over the next few days. To be included, go to the Moderate Christian Blog Aggregator, take a look around, then follow the link to Moderate Christian Blog Aggregator Standards, fill in the form and submit it. I’ll get to adding you to this list quickly.

  • The Incarnation and the Two Laws

    34Now when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they approached him together, 35and one of them tested him by asking him, 36“Teacher, Which commandment is the greatest one in the Torah?” 37Jesus replied, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, and with your whole being’ {Deuteronomy 6:5} and with your whole mind. 38This is the greatest and first commandment. 39And the second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ {Leviticus 19:18} 40On these two commands all the law and the prophets hang. — Matthew 22:34-40 (TFBV)

    I hope I’m getting across the idea in this series (starting with Christian Essentials: Incarnation at the Center) that rather than a list of doctrines and of standards I prefer a hierarchy. Both logically and in terms of importance various teachings fall into a hierarchy. At the center of all of this I see the notion of incarnation. I’m going to discuss my understanding of many other doctrines later, including ones I regard as non-essentials, and I believe in each case we’ll find the incarnation shedding light on how that doctrine should be understood.

    (more…)

  • Security, Convenience, and Freedom

    We’ve just seen another terrorist plot stopped, perhaps at a very late stage, and suddenly we have new security restrictions. The question is, are these new security measures adequate? More importantly, are they all that likely to do any good?

    I was thinking of writing about this, and I looked around on MSNBC, and found an interview with someone who has said most of the things I wanted to say, and also added some points from his expertise that I wouldn’t know. The interview is by Jennifer Barrett and is with Douglas Laird, a security expert.

    He ended with the point I want to start with:

    The problem is that we respond to what happened yesterday today. Richard Reid shows up with a shoe bomb and we start making people take off their shoes, which was silly. Reid was not a bright bulb, but these guys out there today know what they’re doing. Remember: it wasn’t the checkpoint that caught them, but the intelligence work done by the Brits. The real game is played in the intelligence arena, not at the checkpoint. If these guys make it to the checkpoint, you have a much greater challenge.

    He’s absolutely right. If we continue to respond after the fact, it’s only a matter of time until one of these attacks succeeds. There were previous incidents with liquid explosives, and yet security measures are first taken against such explosives after this latest plot was revealed. And it is questionable whether the security measures that have now been taken would necessarily have prevented this attack, had not good intelligence work done so.

    I think we need to pick up on another lesson from this attack. It was not based on the soil of a terrorist nation, but rather in Great Britain and in Pakistan. Simply dealing with countries that sponsor terrorists will not stop their attacks. I believe that our strategic thinking about terrorism is too dependent on a bureaucratic picture of what it would take to accomplish a particular mission. These guys don’t think like bureaucrats. They are not stopped by inconveniences or by the limits of bureaucratic thinking. They think outside the box. It’s good to deal with state sponsors of terrorism and to get at their money. But we should not be complacent about the safetry provided by such things.

    We need to make some decisions as to what we’re willing to put up with in order to be secure. If we don’t make conscious decisions we’re simply going to slide into massive inconvenience and still lack security. For example, commenting on how one might still get banned items onto an aircraft, Laird said:

    But saying, “Take no liquids on board