Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor? (James 4:11-12 ESV)
White Christmas is a holiday movie favorite. At the core of the plot is the tension created by a judgment of character based on partial information. Betty Haines, equipped with half truths by the mis-informed and eavesdropping Emma, concludes that Bob Wallace is taking advantage of a retired General's hard luck to make a quick profit. She and Emma judge harshly. They judge wrongly. But they are convinced they have all the information. Their hearts are set and hardened toward the transgressor. His heart is perplexed and confused at their manifest malice. Then the air clears . . . and it snows and all is well.
I make judgments like that all the time. Just the other day, I did it once more. I observed behavior in someone I know. It was, to my mind, obviously wrong behavior. They spent money extravagantly, money they could not afford. I was convinced they were sinning once more. I judged them in my heart. The thought of judgment surfaced in my heart again and again. I said nothing to them. After all, I had already said something to them a while ago. I held this judgment in my heart, until . . . .
Until, unware of my judgment, they told a group about the gift someone had given them. Guess what the gift was? It was the item I thought they had bought for themselves. Boy, was I ever wrong! Subsequent conversation revealed that they were living far more wisely than I had ever expected.
This was another instance of prejudiced judgment on my part. I would say it was another instance among hundreds. And in most of those hundreds of examples, my premature judgments were wrong. When the facts come out, even just a few more facts, I discovered I was wrong, dead wrong. I sinned against them in my heart and sometimes with my words. And I was wrong.
How can this happen?
I assume I see clearly and know all that there is to be known. When questioned, I protest, "What other explanation is there?" OR "What more is there to be learned?" Diligent investigation? No need for that! hearing all sides of the discussion? No, I have the whole perspective!
I hear from a third party of what another person said or did, and I assume that their report is accurate. I act upon it. I judge based on it. If I share the ill-will, I pile on.
I insist I have the gift of discernment and by that I mean I see things others do not see. I act like discernment is a 6th sense, and is not subject to diligent investigation and evaluation.
I assume the other person is willful, that they are doing this deliberately. I assume there is no way they could be blind to their own sin.
I am a hypocrite. I would not want to be judged by the same standards. I judge quickly, without investigation, speak ill of the other with conviction and certainty, but protest when I am treated to such arbitrary judgments.
Why do I judge others so quickly? Why do I jump to conclusions with so little evidence? Have I ever heard one side of the story and found out it was entirely accurate?
Why do I indulge in speculation -- guessing at what the real motives and actions were? when I know little or nothing about it?
James says it is because of pride. Judgment is the action of the Judge; Judgment is the action of the Lawgiver. The Lawgiver is able to give laws and judge by those laws. The Lawgiver is omniscient and always judges according to truth, not hearsay. He applies the law without prejudice.
I am not omniscient. I am not objective. I twist the facts and distort their meaning in my heart, often without knowing it. I color my judgments with my heart's affection or disaffection toward the person. I often cover over the sins of the ones I love, and exaggerate the faults of those who have hurt me deeply. If I have a grudge against another, I interpret all their actions uncharitably. If I have become impatient with their besetting sin, I judge harshly.
This is why the Bible insists that we are innocent until proven guilty, that a man may be found guilty only after thorough investigation and coroborating evidence. Hearsay is not enough. One side of the story is never enough. This is why the ten commendments include not bearing false witness against our neighbor. God wants to make clear that the pride of my heart that judges and maligns another is out of bounds.
In the presence of hearsay, one-side-of-the-story information, superficial observation, gossip, or obvious ill-will motivated backbiting -- I am best to refuse conclusions, to be silent, to insist on charitable judgments.
But my heart does not find this easy. I find help only in remembering the One who does not deal with me according to my sins or reward me according to my iniquities. I consider the One who, on the night of his preparation for death, in the face of his disciples jockeying for suprior positions in the kingdom, commended them for continuing with him in his trials.
If the thrice-holy God, whom I offend hourly, sees all and makes charitable judgments of his adopted child -- who am I to scrutinize and judge and condemn?
But judgment sells. Slander attracts a crowd. People turn with indifference from a couple huddled in affection on a park bench, but gather in multitudes when a fight breaks out. We have an ear for gossip. We love to feed on the juicy tidbits of what is "really" happening.
Judgment and gossip are bad. It is wicked enough that it goes on in my own heart. It is compounded when it becomes circulated among friends. But now we have a larger field for action. Today we do this over the internet.
Does the internet mean that there is no more privacy? That everybody's business is my business and my business is everybody's business? All because we now have a global living room? Are we all in one household with one backyard, and it is our business to go about looking over everyone else's fence and commenting on what we see going on in their territory? Or telling everyone of the fight we saw or overheard?
There have always been public debates and arguments. Public people who write public opinions or engage in public debates understand that this is their calling and life. People with large influence know that the price of their influence is a measure of loss of privacy. We can review their books, evaluate their addresses and sermons made in larger than local gatherings, and do so with humility, knowing we may have misunderstood them. But their private and local life is not ours to evaluate or critique.
Pride lurks at the door. We want to think we are important. You see, 99.9% of us are not public people, and we are deluded if we think so. We are tempted to think that all our personal battles and perspectives are of greater significance than they really are. We now have a loudspeaker to publish our personal conversations to the whole block -- or the whole world. We can extend the argument to others and get them involved to see how right we are and how wrong the other is.
We are busy-bodies and the WWW offers us large playground for our voyeurism and our malice. We can engage in the private conversations of others. Now, from the comfort our homes, we may move out of our own backyards to see the weeds in neighbors yards, and in yards of people in other cities and countries! We can get out our laser listening devices (google) and eavesdrop on publicized conversations that take place in the privacy of other's homes or churches.
Then, without knowing the whole context, but certain that we do, we publish our conclusions and engage in the argument. And we can now do this to thousands. No more is my pride and malice confined to a handful of friends or a local church. I can attract a large crowd (and a crowd will come) by taking my judgments into the net.
Imagine White Christmas was filmed in 2010. What if the wrong judgments against Bob Wallace were published on the internet? What is the eavesdropping housekeeper Emma had a facebook account and a blog? And the Haines sisters each had their own public diary? Slander against such public figures would have drawn thousands of hits. They would have checked out their stats and congratulated themselves for unmarking the hypocrisy of the great Wallace and Davis. But they were wrong. How long would it have taken the wrongful judgment and slander to be erased from the hearts of their readers?
This blog is committed to edification. This blogger wishes to feed the souls of people who read it. That means offering up meditations and observations that make much of Christ. This blogger wishes to keep his comments about others to a minimum, and only to their books or articles.
This blogger finds plenty of weed-pulling work to do in my own backyard. I have enough work to do to discern my own heart and sin, to keep my eyes upon the great Savior who has made me his adopted child, and to serve the church I love.
Thanks Ps. Mark!
Posted by: Francisco | January 11, 2011 at 09:44 PM
Mark, thank you so much for posting this. This is great to meditate on, as I have also been reading Romans 14 as well. Thank you!
Posted by: Royal Cooper | January 04, 2011 at 08:38 PM