In this society of tolerance the only thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance. How often the christians are silenced from speaking about the evils in this world by the invocation of those magical words, "Do not judge". This invocation most often comes from those who would not think twice about judging you. After all, isn't it a judgement call to say that you are guilty of judging someone else? I see this tactic very often when talking to pro-choicers about abortion. They tell me not to judge the actions of the woman who has an abortion. But are they really invoking Jesus' words? What does the entire passage say?
Matthew 7:1-5 says "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
Jesus tells us to make sure we are clean first before we take on the role of judging other's actions. But that does not mean that we are never to judge. So long as I am not guilty of hypocracy I am free to lovingly judge the actions of those around me. The bible speaks often of judment beginning at home.
1 Peter 4:17 "For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?"
We are told that judgement begins with God's people first, then to the rest of the world. As it pertains to abortion, I am not guilty of aborting my child nor am I guilty of coercing my partner to abort my child. Being that this "beam" is not in my own eye, I can see clearly that the speck still exists in my brother's eye. My duty is to try to remove the speck from my brother's eye.
The bible not only has no commission to avoid judgement, it rather commands that we do judge.
Matthew 18:15-17 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."
Matthew 7:15-16a "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits."
We are told to judge with discernment in order to protect the church from false prophets. We are told to check ourselves to make sure we are free of guilt, but once having made our own eye clean we are to use that clean eye to help our brother remove the speck from his eye. We are called to judge as christians.
Don't let these futile attempts by the half-hearted deter you from your commision. We should protect the innocent. We should judge those who will not listen to the call of God in order to bring them to repentance and right standing before God. In the usual case where the pro-choicer likes to evoke this cry against judgement, we are to cast judgement on the woman who make a foolish decision to kill her unborn. Casting judgement does not mean we cast sentance on her, that is for God to do. We are to cast judgement in order to help this poor woman find her way again, whether she is contemplating abortion, has already committed abortion, or is suffering from an abortion long ago. Judgement is compassion at it's highest.
Good post - I agree with you. We aren't to accept everything we see at the expense of truth.
ReplyDeleteAs for young earth vs. evolution theories:
I am not sure where I stand, simply because I do not have all the facts. There seems to be no standard of truth for those who speak and teach on the subject (for either side of the debate, it would seem) so it seems impossible to get the facts. I would prefer to side with young earth (I am not one of those who tries to integrate the two, not in any extensive sense), simply because I accept the Bible as truth. It is an assumption, but it is one I have to make if I am to be a Christian. Part of it is simply that I'm not that concerned... whatever happened got us to where we are now. So what am I going to do with that? I have everything to gain, and everything to lose based on how I live now and what I devote my life to.
I am not really sure how to subscribe...obviously I figured out at some point, but I don't remember now! You probably have to peruse around a little, though I think you can go to your "I power blogger" link (taking you to your 'home page') and there should be a section there to enter the URL into.
'As it pertains to abortion, I am not guilty of aborting my child nor am I guilty of coercing my partner to abort my child. Being that this "beam" is not in my own eye, I can see clearly that the speck still exists in my brother's eye.'
ReplyDeleteWell put, I had not thought of it that way before.
On the young Earth/Old Earth issue - who cares?
None of us were there, nothing has been proven so it is all mere speculation.
They once claimed the Earth was 4.3 Billion years old, then 4.6.
Well, which is it?
It has no bearing on current daily life.
I do find it amusing that when scientists discuss their reasoning for why certain rocks support an old Earth theory, they use the phrase, "this must mean . . .".
Um, no, it doesn't.
The word "must" is used as a determining factor, when all it is, is a suggestion that something "might" mean something.
If it were proven true, the word "must" would be applicable. Since it has not been, the word "might", which more clearly leaves other possibilities open, would be more appropriate.
Scientists can be very arrogant people.
For example:
Galileo Galilei:
"The great book of nature can be read only by those who know the language in which it was written. And this language is mathematics."
He has it backwards. Nature was not written in the language of mathematics - nature predates mathematics (a language created by humans to describe the world around them) and therefore can not possibly be written in it. Mathematics seeks to describe nature and there are occasions where it fails to do that as is evidenced by the square root of a negative one showing up in problems describing nature.
Why people argue the age of the Earth is beyond me. Until the theory is proved and becomes a law, it is mere speculation that has no bearing on current day to day life.
I appreciate that comment concerning earth age. I agree that it cannot be applied science in that science depends on observation. Noone was around to observe when the Earth began except God. We can either except what He wrote about the topic, or we can pick and chose what scripture we want to believe (which really makes all of it null and void).
ReplyDeleteWe can observe and track what we see today. We can report our observations but conclusions are a dangerous thing. Origins cannot be replicated therefore conclusions cannot be tested. The best we can do is find trends in the way things work around us. I personally believe the evidence observed around us supports the biblical perspective of origins, or at least contradicts MUCH of what is touted in evolutionary circles.
Greatly appreciate the comments and you taking the time to read the posts.