(because I know that not a whole lot of people read this blog, and I'm pretty sure I know all of you anyway, and it's not a public mini-feed forum like facebook)
Fact: I hate getting involved in political discussions, namely because I rarely know enough to form an opinion worth having. I have vague ideas of opinions, but since I'm too lazy to do research I just try to stay away altogether.
Fact: I dislike getting involved in religious discussions, because they are largely political, and because I am afraid to misrepresent that which I believe. I also hate getting into heated debates when it is obvious that there will not be a clear "winner." Most people get pretty worked up when you suggest they might be headed in the wrong direction (heck, just say the word "wrong" to most people and you might as well be talking to a wall), and I have not found the courage to step into a discussion like this, because at the end of it I am afraid of ruining my relationships. Therefore I usually shy away from discussions with people who do not share my general perspectives on faith and its relevance in everyday life. I am not proud of this fact (and this habit tends toward [is?] the sin of omission), but this is, as previously stated, just a fact.
Another (unfortunate?) fact is that I don't always voice my opinions in the Lutheran realm either. I have found that I stray toward the liberal side of conservative, and if I speak up without a well-armed artillery of reasonable support for my thoughts, I find myself not only talking to a wall, but talking to a wall who will spend a decently long amount of time convinced that I am straying from the one true God. Or the one true doctrine, depending on the person/wall. This is unfortunate, because I have several great topics of discussion that I wouldn't mind getting into (and I definitely wouldn't mind some feedback, or having more things to ponder)—but there are always the possibilities of misrepresenting my thoughts (or beliefs), or of taking the discussion from "intellectual" to "emotional and personal" and therefore causing problems between myself and the other person. So I pick and choose my battles discussions, and keep quiet about the rest.
All of that having been said, I wish to post an image that I will not, for all of the previously-stated reasons, share on the facebook.
Comments are welcome, but I will be scared of them. Regardless of who you are.
So I've been thinking about this image, and trying to come up with a clear and concise explanation of why I find it problematic. That's not likely to happen any time soon, so I guess I'll just jump right in. I think I find it problematic because its overly simplistic, as well as misleading. It's taking a couple of the commands of Jesus out of the context of the rest of the commands of Jesus. It's tied to a type of thinking that is in error about what both love and judgment are. First of all, there's a difference between what Jesus means when he says "love" and what most people mean when they say "love." The common understanding of love in society today is "I accept you the way you are, BECAUSE who you are is fundamentally ok, and I'm never going to expect you to change." Jesus' definition of love is: "I accept you the way you are DESPITE the fact that the way you are is NOT ok. Because I love you so much, I am going to change you to be more and more like me." That's why arguing about hot button religious/political topics like homosexuality based on the "judge not" verse is so problematic. You can't say, be like Jesus, don't judge! because Jesus DOES judge. He just doesn't treat us the way we deserve based on his judgment. The world loves based on a legalistic system, and so they assume Jesus does too. You deserve to be loved, therefore I love you. I am commanded to love you, ergo, you must be deserving of love (in the sense that who you are on your own merits love). Well, actually, no. Jesus also said, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Our loving other sinful human beings should have absolutely nothing to do with their merits, or with whether they've been redeemed by Christ or if they're still slaves to sin. As my favorite author Marilynne Robinson says, "Love is holy because it is like grace. The worthiness of its object is never really what matters."
ReplyDelete... yes.
Deletei was too busy apologizing for my inability to speak up that i forgot to mention that i'm not saying this image is the gospel, or that it's without it's flaws. i just found it amusing, mostly, especially because there is some merit to the idea that love is love, regardless of the object (thank you marilynne robinson).
Secondly, there's an issue with the way the word "judge" is interpreted here. This verse is typically quoted to support the idea of "not judging" to mean "not calling out people living in sin," but if you read the whole passage, that interpretation is just not justified.
ReplyDelete“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
Did Jesus stutter? No. Did he clarify? Yes. And his command not to judge is clearly not the command not to point out sin in the lives of others that "not judging" is often interpreted to be. He didn't say, you hypocrite, there's a plank in your eye, so you just shut up about that speck in your brothers eye. (In other words, let's just ignore other people's sin so that we don't get called out on ours). He said FIRST remove your plank, THEN you can address your brother's speck. The language is clear. I'm not precisely sure how scholars work it out, but I think that verse 1 and verse 5 can be safely assumed to go together rather than contradict. You can't hold someone else accountable if you don't recognize your own sin. But, as Paul makes abundantly clear later in the Epistles, you can't love someone and not hold them accountable.
Of course, in the end, it all comes down to motivation and method.
Am I calling this person out because I love her and want her to be like Christ, or am I calling her out because I despise her and think she's a freak?
Am I holding him accountable, or am I ripping him apart?
Am I hating the sin, or am I hating the sinner?
There is a difference, and many Christians do not realize this. But to reduce a genuine desire to correctly interpret Jesus' commands in context to nothing more than intentional deafness to his teachings, as I believe this image does, is unfair and wrong.
... yes, again.
Deletei basically agree with all of these thoughts. which is a really lame way to reply to a comment, but you've said a lot of what i would have said anyway. internet memes are fun for their snappy one-liners, but not so great with actual theology. so thank you for your input :)
p.s. On the main topic of your post, which I sort of ignored up above (sorry!) I'm terrified of comments too, so I totally understand how you feel. Sometimes it takes me days before I can even work up the courage to read responses, because I'm afraid I'll get angry or depressed and spend hours obsessing and then send back a reply based on how I'm feeling rather than on thoughtful reflection. Which is why it took me so long to respond to your response to my comments on your other post. And the cycle continues..
ReplyDeletehaha, i totally understand. i'm trying to be more vocal about my beliefs rather than hiding where it's safe, but unfortunately i'm still in the "thinking about how important it is to do this" stage and not yet to the "actually doing it" stage O_o
Delete