Sunday, August 19, 2007

Judge Not

We had an interesting discussion/lesson while meeting with the Church today and this is what I took from it:

How many times have you been watching a football game and observed a "John 3:16" sign in the stands? It's the single most memorized and recognized verse in the Scriptures outside of "In the beginning..."

John 3:16 is a very powerful verse. The concept that God loves His creation and He gave his Son that believers in Him would not perish is amazing. What a gift that He would choose some of us to live with Him when we deserve little more than death!

However, I think the verse that follows (3:17) has been largely ignored. How ironic that the verse that follows the most famous of all Scriptures is the one that Christians eschew more than any other.

It says, "For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." The idea is that the world is already condemned. It didn't need Jesus to do that. Condemnation had already been scheduled for all of us in the future. Jesus is the Hope. He is the Opportunity and Redeemer. He is the GOOD NEWS that some people won't be condemned. And we are His "Bride" created to be His ambassadors!

But how often do His ambassadors turn Good News into judgment and condemnation? In our desperate attempt to quantify spirituality and "spiritual maturity" we begin to measure the externals and turn the Good News into a checklist of how spiritual awakening should act itself out. The nonbeliever hears little more than comparisons between the "mature" believer and the current station they are in - and they become discouraged.

How much more effective would the church be if we spent less time defining behaviors and encouraging spiritual and behavioral homogenization and more time introducing the mercy and grace of God? Our obsession with changing people from the outside-in is, in my humble opinion, what divides the church and what limits our participation in seeing people come to know Christ for who He is - the Redeemer who reminded the woman at the well (John 8:1-20) that He first loved her and didn't condemn her actions...THEN, once He knew the message had hit home, exhorted her to go and sin no more.

It is when Christians exhort others to [insert behavior modification/action here] and THEN - by the way - "you now need to start showing signs of heart-change"...that we fail to get past the superficial - because our faith is just that - superficial.

Is there really any difference between the Westboro Baptist followers and the average Western Christian? Don't they just focus on external behaviors in a more obnoxious way than most mainstream Christians? Is there really any theological or doctrinal difference between their hateful signs and telling a person they have to quit smoking, drinking, sleeping with their boyfriend/girlfriend, attend Church at least once a week, close your eyes when you pray, etc. before God will bless them? Aren't we insinuating to new believers or unbelievers that God disapproves of them if they aren't currently living up to our expectations? Aren't we telling them that their outward deportment is more important than their heart and soul? Aren't we telling them that behavior is more important than embracing their eternal Father? It's no different, in principle, than the hateful Westboro followers.

I'm not saying smoking, drunkenness, etc. are healthy - I'm saying we rarely need to address them because they are usually taken care of AFTER a person has bathed in God's mercy and begins to act on the gratefulness that flows from their new heart. It's a lot harder for the church to let God do this work but He's much better at it. :) It's much easier to try to mold and shape new believers into homogenized clones that act, behave, and come to faith in Christ just like we did.

My point is this: if Jesus didn't come to judge people and condemn sinners - then maybe our tack should be similar. Let's share Good News. Let's share love. Let's share Jesus. Screw the small box we put God in!

24 comments:

Barbara (aka Layla) said...

Excellent post!!!!!!

Mercy, Matzoh, Mac&Cheese said...

What a novel idea...act like Jesus!!!??? What? Christians? NO!!!! You hit the nail on the head here, Friend...I completely agree. And, I'd take it a step further and say that if our goal is to live like Jesus lived, then our top priority is to love other people. Not preach at them, try to "save" them...just love them. BE Jesus' hands and feet to the "least of these" and be humble enough to know that's all you need to do. In loving and developing relationship with people, there will come trust and safety. With that comes and openness to what we have to share...the Good News. In scripture, we often see Jesus ask those who need something from him, "What is it that you need?" and, when they told Him, he met that need. Then what did he do? He usually told them not to tell anyone about it...but what did they do? They told everyone...they'd been transformed when Jesus met their needs. I feel very strongly that our priorities need to change as Christians. We're so comfortable sitting in our pews at church talking about, or at least stewing about the horrible things we're so glad we don't do. JUDGING! What if we were so moved with compassion that we had to do something about the pain and suffering and sin? What if, and I know this is a big WHAT IF, the church actually did it's job of feeding the hungry, poor, meeting the needs of the widows and orphans? What would happen? What would this world, even this city look like?
Food for thought?

Recovering said...

Thank you Barb!

M, M, M&M - you should click on "Church Life" on the right side of my blog and read through some of those posts. I think you'd like them.

Barry said...

What can I say but... AMEN!

amyn said...

Great post, as usual.

Check out http://www.shoutlife.com/FlamingHeart

I think you'd like what she has to say.

BJ said...

haha! I love it! Two of my very posts this last year have centered around being messy Christians and not having it all figured out. I so agree with you, that we need to come as we are and allow people to do the same. If the church were a safe place, more transformation (even from the sinful behaviors that they abhor) would actually happen. The problem is that the church keeps those people (myself included) at bay, and never allows them to feel like they can truly be themselves--screw-ups in need of a Savior.

Thanks for a thoughtful post! Bless you!

Shane Vander Hart said...

I think if the Church truly did this it would be a lot easier getting the juvenile offenders I work with into a local church when they are released.

Great thoughts.

The Activist said...

"Is there really any theological or doctrinal difference between their hateful signs and telling a person they have to quit smoking, drinking, sleeping with their boyfriend/girlfriend, attend Church at least once a week, close your eyes when you pray, etc. before God will bless them?"

I don't know of any Christian or church that does this the way you have described it. However, as brothers and sisters in Christ, we ARE to come along side one another and offer correction when needed. Allowing someone to wallow in their sin is about the most unloving thing I can think of for a Christian to do.

"Aren't we insinuating to new believers or unbelievers that God disapproves of them if they aren't currently living up to our expectations?"

Jesus said that if we love Him, we will obey His commands.

"Aren't we telling them that their outward deportment is more important than their heart and soul? Aren't we are telling them that behavior is more important than embracing their eternal Father?"

Behavior reflects what is in the heart. How can someone be in fellowship with God, while at the same time living a lifestyle which God has told us is sinful?

"It's no different, in principle, than the hateful Westboro followers."

Lovingly confronting someone in their sin because you care about them is, well, loving. What Westboro does is hateful. There is a HUGE difference.

The Activist said...

"Screw the small box we put God in!"

By the way, I find it amusing that basing our understanding of God on the Bible is called "putting Him in a box". Usually when people say that they are basically saying you can define God in whatever way is most comfortable for you.

Recovering said...

the activist - I am truly sorry you aren't seeming to get the concept here.

I'm not saying we can't lovingly confront believers about sin...

this post was about reaching the lost and evangelism...so you are right that Jesus said if we love Him we will obey his commandments. There are two points about that:
1. Why confront about sin when they are slaves to death? Why confront about sin before they love Him? They don't have to obey His commandments before they love Him.
2. What are His commandments? He told the religious people in the Temple that there are only two - Love God and Love your neighbor. If we help people do this on a macro level, than the individual issues we tend to fret about often take care of themselves. If they don't over time...then we can talk about "lovingly confronting."

BTW - there is nothing comfortable for most humans about stripping religious structure out of our faith and letting God be bigger than that...The easy route is to be religious (which you are) and focus on things that are easily quantifiable.

The Activist said...

1. You are wrong. Until they realize they are sinners bound for Hell, they will have no need for Christ, unless you are preaching a Jesus that will make their life experience on earth better, which is unbiblical and deceptive. They will not realize their need for the Savior until they realize they are lost. The Law shows them how lost they are. Can we expect them to live godly lives? No. Are we allowed to judge their behavior as we would that of believers? No. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold up the mirror of God's Law so they can examine themselves. Galatians 3:24 says, "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

2. Jesus affirmed all of the Ten Commandments except the 4th. In fact, He set the standard higher, not lower. The two commandments, to which you refer, if followed, would fulfill the Ten Commandments, not abolish them. Believers are under grace, not law, but that does not mean we are free to sin.

You call me religious, which I sense carries a negative connotation for you (it does not have such a connotation in the Bible). I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that I am "religious", in the negative sense you intended it, and why it is that you get defensive and name call when someone disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible?

I'm not putting God in a box. I am marveling at His greatness and sovereignty and not limiting Him to a one-dimensional entity and trying to make Him into my likeness, as you seem to be doing.

Recovering said...

Dearest Activist,

1. Starting with the sentence "You are wrong." isn't the strongest way to start a comment/argument. I'd suggest something like "I disagree." I'm just sayin'...

2. I never said we shouldn't share the eternal consequences of not following Jesus but you can do that in context of His great love and willingness that none should perish...not the tact most modern legalists like you take.

3. I haven't called you names. You are religious. Religion, historically, is man trying to reach God. You desperately want to believe the Scriptures empower you to be something you're not and your comments smell of spiritual arrogance. That's religion. You are very similar to the Pharisees and they were religious. So I simply state the obvious. In my last paragraph I called you a legalist. You are legalistic by definition. You spelled it out in your comments. You'll disagree. I'll insist...others can decide.

4. You are putting the cart before the horse. I'm not saying that people shouldn't live holy and godly lives passionate about pleasing God. I beleive in an innerant and literal Scripture. I'm with you on that! I just don't beleive we need to expect behavior/external changes until AFTER the heart has been renewed. Let those changes occure from gratefulness and they will be lifelong changes. Compel the change through dogma and it isn't as healthy and isn't as beautiful! And we all still sin after we become believers. I dont' think overnight changes are required. I see the Epistles as being written because the CHURCHES Paul and others were writing to were not changing overnight!

5. Being the good Calvinist that I am, I believe that I am totally depraved and was chosen by God not because I chose Him but because - for some reason beyond my knowledge - He said I was one of His children. So to say that I'm putting him in a box to make Him like me is asinine. People who are so addicted to structure and homogenization in the Christian faith like you are the ones that limit the vast creativity that is the Church. I believe God will save some that may never walk the way were walk, go to church like we do, but they will all love their Messiah. Many will be persecuted by church people (read: evangelicals and fundamentalists).

This is my last comment. I am guessing getting the last word in is important to you and I will be happy to let you do so. Thanks for the comments. I enjoy having a reason to type these thoughts out.

The Activist said...

1. You may be right; perhaps I should have said "I disagree". On the other hand, I don't see that non-offensive stance being taken in the New Testament.

2. Sorry, but it's not legalism (there you go name calling again!). I quoted you Scripture to back up my contention, and there are other verses. Jesus didn't go out to people and say, "Follow me because I love you so much". He said, "Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." People can't understand the meaning of Christ's great love and sacrifice unless they understand how lost they are and how hopeless eternity is without a relationship with Christ. Until they realize that, His sacrifice will make no sense to them, and they will have no need for a Savior.

By the way, apparently you think Jesus and Paul were legalists then, too, since I have only been quoting their words.

3. You ascribe a negative connotation to the word "religious", hence you called me a name. But it doesn't surprise me, those who only show love (except to those who disagree), but don't share the truth, and think one can be a Christian and live life however they please, often throw out names like "legalist", "Pharisee", and "religious" to anyone who seeks to be a biblical Christian. It is merely a debate tactic to silence or intimidate your opponent; a pathetic tactic, but a tactic nonetheless.

I don't claim any empowerment that isn't in Scripture. We are to give law to the proud and grace to the humble. We are to show the Law to the unsaved, so they can see that they fall short of the mark, and their only hope is in Christ. We are to offer correction to believers who stray. Those things are in the Bible. Read it and you'll see.

James talks about "Pure and undefiled religion before God", so apparently religion isn't necessarily a bad thing, as you and other emergents and postmodern evangelicals have posited.

4. I don't disagree.

5. I agree with your first statement. I said you put God in a box because you seem to have molded Him into your image, instead of the other way around. You seem to think that God's only attribute is love.

I'm not addicted to structure or "homogenization", whatever that is supposed to mean. I'm not interested in limiting creativity in the Church, as long as the church remains biblical, faithful and obedient.

What is your problem with evangelicals and fundamentalists now? I know people have also twisted the word "fundamentalist" to give a negative connotation to something that was once positive, but I don't know too many biblical Christians who say evangelicals are bad.

I don't care about having the last word, just a respectful and intelligent discussion. I think if we could sit down and talk face to face, we probably agree on more things than you think. However, you have chosen to pigeonhole and stereotype me, and sully the debate with name calling, rather than trying to really find out what my beliefs are. That seems pretty arrogant, intolerant and unloving on your part!

Recovering said...

The Activist,

I had every intention of not commenting again but I appreciate your invitiation to do so. Although I think we are coming to an impasse were further comment will be futile.

You said: "I don't see that non-offensive stance being taken in the New Testament."
For every Scripture that you quote that focuses on the warning of hell (which I believe wholeheartedly in) or other 'offensive' way, I can point to an example like Jesus with the woman caught in adultery mentioned in my post. Jesus showed love and mercy, chastised those that were condemning her, and THEN, once he knew that His message of love and mercy sunk in, exhorted her to go and sin no more...not a sermon on what that meant. It's almost like he said "go, I'll walk with you and teach you how to not live a sinful lifestyle anymore." My point is this - Christians tend to pick a style (confrontation and condemnation or loving and merciful) of evangelism and stick with it. I see a balance in the Scriptures and we need to be open to what the Spirit tells us to do in each case.

I think you need to carefully re-read my post through an objective lense.

I can make the Bible say anything I want. But when I take the Scriptures in their totality I see balance. I see instances where two liers were struck dead for lying to God in Acts. But I see a man who murdered Christians have a conversion experienced. I see Jesus say "repent for the Kingdom is at hand" and then I see examples of amazing love and mercy for harlots and theives. I see Paul brush the dust from his sandals and basically say "go to hell" to entire villages and then I see him meet the Athenians where they were at in a respectful and loving way when he preached in their temple.

Balance is something that church people like you struggle to attain because "biblical christians" do it [insert unloving evangelical technique here] and any show of mercy and love with unbelievers is weak and unbiblical.

You said: "We are to give law to the proud and grace to the humble. We are to show the Law to the unsaved, so they can see that they fall short of the mark, and their only hope is in Christ."
This is where I think our impasse is and why this is probably why we shouldn't continue a discussion in this kind of forum. The ENTIRE books of Romans and Hebrews, in their whole context, argue against you. Paul warns the Jews that when Gentiles are introduced to Jesus they don't need to hear the law (it is fulfilled and a burden) to know they need Him.

You also said: "We are to offer correction to believers who stray." I AGREE! My post and my comments don't deal with believers that should be mature in their faith or at least making strides toward maturity. My post is about nonbeleivers and new believers. But even current believers are supposed to be confronted in love first...than dealt with more harshly if repentance doesn't happen.

So...I think the point is this:
There is a growing movement of evangelists who tend toward simply reading the Scriptures with nonbelievers without commentary or who tend (not always) to focus on the love and mercy of Christ while being honest about eternal consequences. They love the person before and while sharing the Gospel and meet their practical needs like James 1 commands us to. They build relationships with nonbelievers that sometimes last years before fruit is seen. And, quite frankly, this is resulting in MOST of the conversions that are adding to the church today. Most churches who say they are growing are simply getting church people from other churches. Where we are seeing growth in my area is through people who feel the way I do loving people...often resulting in their own great personal sacrifice for those they are seeking to reach. God is love...and we won't hate anyone into the Kingdom.

So, brother (I called you another name), I will pray that the Helper overwhelms you with His love so that you won't be able to help but share it with others. I think you'll be amazed at the results.

The Activist said...

"I can point to an example like Jesus with the woman caught in adultery mentioned in my post. Jesus showed love and mercy, chastised those that were condemning her, and THEN, once he knew that His message of love and mercy sunk in, exhorted her to go and sin no more...not a sermon on what that meant. It's almost like he said "go, I'll walk with you and teach you how to not live a sinful lifestyle anymore."

You proved my point. Jesus didn't tell people "I disagree with you"; He let them know their behavior was sinful.

The Activist said...

"Balance is something that church people like you struggle to attain because "biblical christians" do it [insert unloving evangelical technique here] and any show of mercy and love with unbelievers is weak and unbiblical."

You really don't know me well enough to make those kind of accusations. You have never observed my interactions with unbelievers. I work with unbelievers every day and show them nothing but love and compassion, but you have pigeonholed me into your small box that says a Christian can't be loving and share the truth at the same time. I can only surmise from everything you have said--with your disdain for anything that hints of traditional Christianity, including those who evangelize and those who follow the fundamentals of the faith as revealed in Scripture--that you are part of the emergent church movement. If I am wrong I apologize, and welcome you to enlighten me as to what has so turned you against those of us who seek to be biblical Christians and follow the model of the first century Church.

Recovering said...

"You really don't know me well enough to make those kind of accusations. You have never observed my interactions with unbelievers."

And you don't know me! So it's OK for you to come on my blog and criticize a post about loving people but when I question your tone and your facts (like you did me), it's somehow not OK because I don't know you? Can we at least agree that we don't know each other and that loving people is the way to win them into the Kingdom?!

Recovering said...

Also, I am a fundamentalist! There is a difference between BEING a fundamentalist and ACTING LIKE A TYPICAL fundamentalist. The latter is damaging to the kingdom...the former is the stalwart defender of an innerant Scripture! If you explore my older posts, I think you'll be very comfortable with my doctrine/theology even if you are more legalistic and dogmatic about the externals than me.

The Activist said...

"There is a growing movement of evangelists who tend toward simply reading the Scriptures with nonbelievers without commentary or who tend (not always) to focus on the love and mercy of Christ while being honest about eternal consequences."

I have no quarrel with that. However, most unbelievers have no desire for things of God, unless and until the Holy Spirit convicts them.

"They love the person before and while sharing the Gospel and meet their practical needs like James 1 commands us to."

Again, I have no problem with that, as long as they share the Gospel. But the Gospel isn't "Good News" unless the person first realizes they are lost.

"They build relationships with nonbelievers that sometimes last years before fruit is seen."

Yes, and sometimes they never quite get around to sharing the Gospel, because they are too concerned about offending the person and losing the friendship. It is too comfortable to many people to not bring it up.

"And, quite frankly, this is resulting in MOST of the conversions that are adding to the church today. Most churches who say they are growing are simply getting church people from other churches. Where we are seeing growth in my area is through people who feel the way I do loving people...often resulting in their own great personal sacrifice for those they are seeking to reach. God is love...and we won't hate anyone into the Kingdom."

I'm not advocating hate at all; that's something you have chosen to accuse me of.

My observation is different from yours. The churches I see growing are either the mega-churches, most of which preach a feel-good, non-offensive message designed more to keep people coming back than to give them a message the Holy Spirit can use to convict them (the ear ticklers), or churches who preach the whole counsel of God. The divide is getting greater in Christianity, and more and more people are hungry for real Bible teaching, and seeking out churches where that is found.

I belonged to a church like you describe. I saw very few real conversions. What I saw was sin that was rampant in the church. People claiming to be saved openly living sinful lifestyles and not being offered correction. People who weren't even believers being placed in charge of ministries. People who kept coming because, yes, they were being loved, apparently unconditionally (I say apparently because I don't think it was sincere on the part of many people, but they were doing it because that's what they were "supposed" to do), but who never realized a relationship with God, but only with men--horizontal, not vertical. That kind of attention can be addictive, especially for people who feel they have never been really loved before, and can actually keep people from God, rather than drawing them to Him. I saw people attend there for years and never get saved, or they claimed to be saved but there was little or no fruit. That is the result of getting too much love and not enough truth.

I agree with you that there needs to be balance.

By the way, I don't understand why you are so adverse to continuing a discussion. Am I not being respectful and offering reasonable questions and arguments? Am I not carefully considering what you have to say?

The Activist said...

Sorry I haven't read your other posts. When I see "Judge Not!" it always catches my attention! I have heard that is the most oft quoted verse these days, even more than John 3:16, and almost everyone who uses it (especially to condemn people who are making biblical judgments) uses it incorrectly.

I'm not legalistic and dogmatic about the externals--not any more than Paul was. I take the Bible seriously. If you'll read his Epistles, I think you'll see what I am talking about. He did not hesitate to teach the churches what the Christian life should look like. Behavior should come from the heart, rather than externally imposed rules, but that doesn't mean we should overlook sinful behavior just because our hearts aren't where they need to be yet.

Recovering said...

You said: "He did not hesitate to teach the churches what the Christian life should look like. Behavior should come from the heart, rather than externally imposed rules, but that doesn't mean we should overlook sinful behavior just because our hearts aren't where they need to be yet."

HE WAS WRITING TO THE CHURCH! People he'd already invested time and energy into. People he'd already lead to the Lord and leaders he had expectations of. MY POST WASN'T ABOUT CHURCH DISCIPLINE! It was about reaching the lost. Two very different subjects in many ways.

From what you have said, I surmise that you were turned off by a superficial church experience that allowed sinful behaviors to go on unchecked. Assuming you are not a legalist nor do you have any other issues with authority, than you have every right to look carefully for a church that strikes a balance between loving its members and disciplining in love. I'M WITH YOU!

You are mixing that with my point on reaching the lost I think!

You said: "Yes, and sometimes they never quite get around to sharing the Gospel, because they are too concerned about offending the person and losing the friendship. It is too comfortable to many people to not bring it up."

I said very explicity that part of reaching out to the lost is meeting their needs and reading the Scriptures with them. If you are reading the Scriptures with anonbeliever, that is usually all it takes. The Holy Spirit is big enough to do the convicting and the renewing. My job as Ambassador in the faith is to introduce the nonbeliever to Jesus. Through loving them and reading with them I do this...the rest is between them and God.

So you've drawn another comment out from me...I don't usually do that...but the reason I'm reticent to continue is because I feel you are conflicted on the outreach vs. church discipline issue and you pick a sentence from my comment without taking into consideration the totality of my comments or my blog in general. That's difficult, man!

One last thing. You said: "When I see "Judge Not!" it always catches my attention! I have heard that is the most oft quoted verse these days, even more than John 3:16, and almost everyone who uses it (especially to condemn people who are making biblical judgments) uses it incorrectly."

I got "Judge Not" from John 3:17, the whole basis for the post. My point was that it is largely IGNORED by the church - not that it is being used incorrectly. Are you assuming I'm getting my title of the post from a different Scripture? That may explain your ire when we may be much closer than you think on this subject.

The Activist said...

John 3:17? "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved"?

You're right; I did get it from another verse. I got it from Matthew 7:1, "Judge not, that you be not judged."

Three reasons I made that assumption. First, "Judge not" are the first two words of the verse! Second, that seems to be the verse everyone is quoting when they say "Judge not!". I don't think most people (especially unbelievers) are using John 3:17 as the basis for that command. Third, Matthew 7:1 is Jesus' command to the people, whereas John 3:17 is indicating the reason Jesus came to earth.

By the way, did you know there are quite a few people who profess to be Christians who believe the reason Jesus came to earth was to teach us how to be better people?!

I'll try to read your other posts as I have time. Thank you for taking the time to dialog with me.

The Activist said...

Recovering, I'd like to get your opinion on the following:

"Yesterday we were out handing out free water for ***** Church, just handing out water to people at the ******* parade. Along the way I saw a few people from other churches but by far the most warm greeting I got from “church people” was when I saw *** ***** (a pastor from another church). He left a good mark on me this past week. Whenever you start to do something in the community, you have people who object. Since we were sporting our new ***** (name of church) t-shirts, there was a chance for a lot of those churchy people to be jealous or possessive of that type of ministry. But *** (the pastor referred to above) was appreciative and gracious, and that kind of spirit is much appreciated in our town.

We need more people who are interested in the good of other people and restoration of the communities in which we live. I believe that while they are large they have used their influence to change the community. And for them and their human and personable leader, I praise God.

The Activist said...

One thing that irritates me is how some people who profess to be Christians have taken words that used to mean something positive and have turned them into something negative (Isaiah 5:20 comes to mind). Here are some examples.

-Religion/religious

-Fundamentalist

-Church people

-Evangelical

-Christian


Some phrases being used by these people that irritate me:

-We just want to love on you.

-We're just showing God's love in a practical way.

-God loves you. No strings attached!

-We're just waiting on God to show up.