Concerning Judgment

Recently, I read some comments on a Facebook post with which I vehemently disagreed.  Let me clarify: I agreed with the original post, but not with some of the comments that were in contradiction with the original post.  Specifically, here is one of the comments that I disagreed with and I chose it because it depicts an attitude that needs to be addressed: “This post is dripping with judgment and dangerous over-generalization.”

The attitude that I want to address is my own, because my initial reaction was this: in making this observation and declaring judgment to be wrong, this person made a judgment.  However, I was incorrect in my assessment.  Please do not stop reading here, but rather consider the evidence included through the duration of this article.

Consider the following definition:

Judge:[1]

Transitive Verb

• To form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises.
• To sit in judgment on
• To determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation
• Govern, rule – used of a Hebrew tribal leader
• To form an estimate or evaluation of; especially: to form a negative opinion about <shouldn’t judge him because of his accent>
• To hold as an opinion

Intransitive Verb

• To form an opinion
• To decide as a judge

According to Merriam-Webster, the main definition of “judge” is an opinion formed through the careful preponderance of evidence and fact, and the definition that many people utilize (albeit incorrectly) comes in at fifth place.  Note, however, that even though the 5^th definition includes “forming a negative opinion” of someone or something, it is still based on the preponderance of evidence (“estimate or evaluation of”) and the example used denotes a lack of this careful thought. 

Consider also this definition:

 Judgment:[2]

• An opinion or decision that is based on careful thought
• The act or process of forming an opinion or making a decision after careful thought: the act of judging something or someone
• The ability to make good decisions about what should be done

There are a number of different definitions for “judgment,” and each is applicable in a specific context (for instance, the comment quoted at the beginning obviously is not speaking about a decision made by a court).  Note that Merriam-Webster states that a judgment is “based on careful thought,” it is a decision formed “after careful thought,” and that it is “the ability to make good decisions about what should be done.”  The common theme throughout the definition of both “judge” and “judgment” is “careful thought,” “evidence,” and “inquiry and deliberation.”  All of these words lend credence to the idea that the person forming a true judgment has exercised due diligence to evidence and has carefully weighed said evidence in order to come to a logical conclusion.

Therefore, when the writer stated that the post was “dripping with judgment,” he was correct.  Although this person meant it as a negative thing, by definition it is correct.  However, I was incorrect in assuming that this person made a judgment in return; if such a person states that they did not make a judgment, why argue? If evidence has not been carefully considered and an opinion is formed without a solid foundation, then a true judgment has not been formed. 

Frequently, people reference Matthew 7:1 in their efforts to condemn judgment, but that approach fully neglects the context of this statement.  In fact, the use of “Judge not” by Jesus fits perfectly well the aforementioned definitions; “For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you” (7:2).  We are all judged by the word of God (John 12:44-50), which is the only measure by which we ought to judge concerning spiritual things.  If we seek to guide ourselves apart from the word of God, then we are not truly making judgments (there is no preponderance of evidence) and we fit better with Jeremiah 10:23.

Judgment is not only authorized by God, but is shown via Apostolic example and is commanded, just as encouragement (which many people want at the expense of righteousness), refutation of false doctrines, and the rebuke of those in sin (which inherently requires proper judgment based on the Scriptures).  Consider 1 Corinthians 5, 1 Corinthians 11 (note that Paul makes two judgments in 1 Corinthians 11…one in which he judged them as correctly executing God’s command and one in which he judged them as not following God’s command), and 2 Timothy 4:1-5.  Inherent in each of these passages is that the judgment is based upon the authority of God, not man (note that Paul even states in 1 Corinthians 5:3 that he has already judged the erring brother as though he were present). 

With this in mind, it is obvious that when someone holds a view in contradiction to the Bible (note that I did not say a view in contradiction to a man), they have not made a judgment in accordance with the proper definition.   In other words, they have not carefully considered the evidence and drawn a logical conclusion based upon the authority of God, but have given more credence to their own desires (Jeremiah 10:23).  No longer should we argue that such people have formed a judgment!   

---

[1] "Judge." Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed December 26, 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judge.

[2] "Judgment." Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed December 26, 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judgment.

Does Jesus Specifically Have to Say It?

I posted this article a couple of years ago on the Summersville church of Christ blog, but recent events in the news and on social media have brought it back to mind.  Please read carefully and consider the implications of ignoring the writings of the Apostles.

Perhaps you have seen the argument that if Jesus didn't specifically speak out against something, then modern Christians cannot speak about it.  This argument has been made on various topics throughout the years, but in more recent years it has been made concerning the sin of homosexuality.  Now, this post is not going to be about homosexuality, but it is the sin that this argument has been used to "justify" most recently.  However, it has been used for justification of other sins in the past and it will, I'm sure, be used in the future.

The argument, in other words, is that since Jesus did not make a specific point of calling homosexuality a sin, then we cannot say anything about it today.  The only way that an individual could possibly come to this conclusion is to cast aside the entirety of the Bible (generally in order to justify an activity they are already participating in).  However, this does lead to the question: does Jesus specifically have to say it?

If it is true that Jesus had to specifically say it, then to what purpose do we have the writings of the apostles? If the actual, verbal words of Jesus were the only ones that matter, then there truly would be no purpose to having the rest of the Bible.  Pack it up, toss it out, burn it, bury it, do whatever to it because it doesn’t matter.  But is this true? Just out of curiosity, what did Jesus say about this concept (since that is the original argument anyway)?

Turn to John 12:42-50.  In this passage, Jesus asserts two things; first, that the word He spoke would judge those that reject it (12:48), and second, that He spoke only that which God the Father had commanded Him (12:49-50).  Even Jesus, the Son of God, did as directed by God the Father.  Now turn to Matthew 16:13-20.  In this passage, Jesus grants to the apostles the “keys” to the kingdom of heaven.  What are those keys? Access to heaven through inspiration and knowledge of salvation, both of which came from God the Father! Jesus also states that whatever the apostles bound or loose on earth would likewise be bound or loosed in heaven.  Does this mean that God allowed the apostles to dictate to Him what would be taught (something that He did not even grant to the Son)? No, they were inspired to speak the will of God just as Jesus was.  How do we learn this? Through other passages concerning these same topics!

In 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter writes that scripture is not for private interpretation (1:20) and that prophecy is not of men, but of God via the Holy Spirit (1:21).  In other words, the inspired men of God spoke as He moved them to speak.  They only conveyed the will of God to mankind, not their own will! Also, the truth is the truth regardless of how people try to interpret it differently than what it says (1:20).  In 1 Corinthians 1:18-25, Paul tells us that Christ is the power and wisdom of God.  Further, Christ became that wisdom for us (1:30), and therefore Paul came in spiritual wisdom to preach the message of salvation to mankind (2:1-16).  He did not come, as he states in chapter 2, in the wisdom of man, but the wisdom of God.

From all these passages, we can see that the assertion that the message HAS to come from Christ directly is false.  Many people want to look only at what Jesus said because they have a misconceived notion of what Jesus stood for and taught (in other words, while they argue for only looking at what Jesus actually said, they don’t even take all of what He said…just what they WANT to believe).  God inspired the prophets and the apostles, the writers of the Bible, and dictated to them the message they were to preach/teach/write. It ALL comes from God, whether Jesus said it or whether the apostles said it by way of inspiration.  Therefore, it does NOT have to be Jesus that specifically says something in order for it to be applicable!

Fallacies in Argumentation

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been teaching my students about fallacies, which are errors in reasoning and arguments.  These fallacies are easily located in nearly every discussion, whether it be a discussion concerning favorite sports teams to political discussions to religious discussions.  Often, when an individual who holds an unsupported opinion is pinned down by logic and fact, they employ any tactic possible to “win the argument.”  When this happens, “truth” is not the main objective, but rather the winning of the argument.  Such arguments are “usually plausible-sounding” and use “false, inadequate, or invalid evidence.”[1]  Many times, such arguments are made on purpose, but occasionally they are made due to ignorance (“lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc”[2]).  Whether done purposefully or not, such argumentation has, generally, one of two effects; either it convinces equally ignorant people as to the “rightness” of the argument or, more likely, it causes an honest audience to question the credibility of the person arguing.

Consider a few of the following forms of fallacies; have you either seen or employed them in the past? Our age of digital media allows for such argumentation to occur before an individual bothers to take the time to form a logical response based on facts and truth, or, as is often the case, before they even read what they “disagree” with.

“Bandwagon Fallacy – Someone who argues that “everybody thinks it’s a good idea, so you should too” is using the bandwagon fallacy.  Simply because someone says that “everyone” is “jumping on the bandwagon,” or supporting a particular point of view, does not make the point of view correct.”[3]  Often, people utilizing this form of argumentation do not realize that they are doing it.  It often takes the form of “well, this is the same as that, and we all accept THAT as being correct, so therefore THIS is correct.”  Is that true?

Another fallacy is based on attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself.  This is called an “ad hominem” attack and it “involves attacking irrelevant personal characteristics of the person who is proposing an idea rather than attacking the idea itself.”[4]  This is perhaps the easiest fallacy to fall prey to, because our natural inclination is to attack back if we feel attacked.

A particularly popular, even if done subconsciously, fallacy is known as the “red herring” fallacy.  This is when “someone attacks an issue by using irrelevant facts or arguments as distractions.”[5]  In nearly any discussion, keeping someone on point is perhaps the most difficult task there is to complete. 

In many discussions, a mixture of these logical fallacies is employed; in other words, individuals often base their perspective off of what the “majority” believes rather than facts, then, should that perspective be challenged, they attack either the person (ad hominem) or throw irrelevant “facts” into the discussion in order to distract from the topic at hand (red herring).  If this analysis is doubted, simply read any political or religious discussion on Facebook for evidence.

Such argumentation is nothing new to the modern world; there are similarities between these fallacies and the “arguments” made for the crucifixion of Christ.  Consider how, when Pilate questioned the Jews concerning what Jesus had done that was deserving of death, the Jews answered, “If He were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him up to you” (John 18:30).  At the very best, this is a red herring argument; what evidence was presented that Jesus was guilty of anything worthy of death? The Jews intended to distract Pilate from uncovering the fact that they were both rebellious and envious of Jesus.  This red herring argument, however, was not convincing to Pilate.  Pilate knew that the Jews had handed Jesus over to him because of envy (Matthew 27:18).  Essentially, the credibility of the participating Jews was shot with Pilate, but fearing a riot, he allowed the crucifixion to continue. 

As can be easily seen in discussions today, particularly concerning sin, these logical fallacies are used and abused.  For instance, when a specific sin is being discussed, the person who is likely participating in that sin or is close to someone who is participating will throw out a red herring argument rather than dealing with the truth that the sin is, in fact, a sin.  Predominantly,  Matthew 7:1 is abused in this instance; rather than looking at the sin and fixing it in their life, the impacted individual will claim that Jesus said not to judge (an obvious misapplication of the context of Matthew 7:1), and then they will attack the person(s) pointing out the true nature of the sin in question (ad hominem attack).  Is this appropriate?

Consider also how often in religious discussions that the supposed “attitude” of the person discussing a sin is called into question.  For example, an individual shows from Scripture that an activity is a sin, then an affected person calls foul and claims that the original person was too harsh or mean in what they said rather than looking at WHAT was said.  This is the classic “it isn’t WHAT you said, but HOW you said it” approach, which is a mixture of both ad hominem and red herring argumentation.  Does such an attack alter the truth of God’s word?

It is easy to fall prey to any, all, or a mixture of the above fallacies, and there are other fallacies beyond the scope of this brief article.  When entering a discussion, we must ensure that we are seeking only the truth, not simply to “win the argument” or prove our own preconceived notions.  No matter how personal the attack, keep on point (no matter which side of the “argument” you are on) and pursue only the truth.

---

[1] Ross, Raymond, and Diana Leonard.  Introduction to the Speechmaking Process. E ed. Vol. 14.  Redding: BVT, 2012, pg. 373-374.

[2] “ignorance.” Dictionary.com Unabridged.  Random House, Inc. 01 Dec. 2014.

[3] Beebe, Steven and Susan Beebe.  A Concise Public Speaking Handbook.  Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2012, pg. 236.

[4] Ibid., 237.

[5] Ibid., 237.