A Responsibility to Judge

“We have no right to judge them.” We hear statements like this quite often these days, and I get the impression many usually just nod in agreement. After all, no one has the right to judge anyone else, do they? Perhaps due to the frequency in which the statement is made the issue bears a bit more thought.


An equivocation is made in that what we often mean by “you have no right to judge” is “you are not allowed to call what someone else does wrong”. If that is the case, however, then to apply the principle (we have no right to judge) the first thing that must be done is violate the principle (judging that one person has judged another). We must stop using the phrase in that way and instead take the time to define the terminology and really spend time thinking what the issue of judging is really all about.

Judge is defined as, “to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises.” Surely this is not the normally intended usage that is found to be so objectionable. Why would we tell someone else they have no right to form an opinion through carefully weighing evidence and testing of premises? If I come to an intersection and see another vehicle continue without stopping through the intersection even though the light was a steady red color, I would correctly judge that the individual committed a traffic violation by running a red light.

Judge is also defined as, “to sit in judgment on”, or put another way to be the moral judge over another person. Perhaps this hits a little closer to home. Should no one sit in judgment over another? If so why not? In most cases what would first come to mind would be the statement, “Judge not or you will be judged.” But that statement comes from the Bible, specifically Matthew 7:1. Does this mean the Bible is the authority on judging? I believe that it must be, lest we resort to the subjective, arbitrary and capricious human constructs.

I leave it to you the reader to think further about an absolutely binding ethic of judging. For now, since Matthew 7:1 is invariably quoted when instructing others not to judge, let’s just assume the Bible is the authority on, and provides proper instruction on judging. What then does the Bible actually say about judging others? Hebrews 4:12-13 tells us that we should not judge motivations, that only God knows a persons thoughts and attitudes. James 2:1-4 instructs us not to show favoritism, or to judge by appearance. These verses, among others, instruct us in the negative, or ways in which we should not judge others. However, there is no command to abandon all judgment completely. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 and 6:1-8; Matthew 7:15-20; 1 John 4:1, and 1 Thessalonians 5:12-21 commend us to judge others to determine if their actions are in accordance with what God has established as acceptable behavior. In short, we are instructed to make judgments on behavior (observing the fruit) while at the same time prohibited from going to the thoughts, attitudes and motivations behind the behavior (cursing the tree).

Whenever the issue of judging comes up we must be careful to define the terms and correctly represent the argument. While it may be patently wrong to believe that any human being is the authority on morality and therefore has the obligation to sit as moral judge over the motivations of another person, it does not follow that one cannot say anything negative concerning the behavior of another. Of prime importance is establishing the fundamental moral code applicable to all people by which judgments are made. Properly understood, because of a transcendent ethic we not only have the right, but also the responsibility to observe the fruit of human behavior and measure it against the moral law of the bible established and revealed by God for the purpose of transformation into the likeness of Christ that is intended for us all; a process that must begin in each individual human heart. After all, Jesus himself taught us to remove the beam from our own eye before we try to remove a speck from our brother.

By way of simple analogy, Jesus came to provide forgiveness through obedient submission and sacrifice. We all will be judged by God’s perfect and holy standard, and we all fall short. This is the hope of the Gospel: God judged us and then demonstrated His love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us as our substitute in order to provide a way of escape from His final eternal judgment. Perhaps when we say “We have no right to judge them” we are only partially correct; perhaps our statement should be ‘We have no right to judge them against anything but Gods absolute moral law.’ If we couple that understanding with the command to love others as ourselves and look at the entire issue of judging in light of the cross, perhaps we can understand aright the issue of judgment.

Democracy in Action

In a previous post I discussed the lack of thinking about issues surrounding politics in my generation.  Well, I was driving around town yesterday and noticed some road work taking place.  Apparently as part of some continuing state construction (we have multiple major projects ongoing) a need was seen to dress up all the intersections in the downtown area.  Road crews are using a criss-cross mesh that they are pressing into existing asphalt pavement, sort of like pressing a cookie cutter mold into rolled out batter, to make a brick pattern across both lanes from curb to curb.  This pattern is then painted red and white to look like a brick crossing.  This project had me thinking, since the issue of the flag removal based on the seperation clause was fresh on my mind, about a statement made on the evening news.  During a second broadcast (because now the same group has filed suit demanding the removal of a statue constructed showing a soldier kneeling by a cross which is obviously a grave marker similar to the thousands the exist currently at Arlington National Cemetary) a editorial spot indicated that more and more flags and the like are taken into consideration due to public outcry.

So, here are the questions that ran through my head.  Is it the job of elected political leaders to address and act on every instance of public outcry?  Is it the case that we live in a democracy, where elected officials must do as the majority of people (or at least when a decent sized group makes a lot of noise) dictate?

These are questions that really need some serious consideration.  I'm looking forward to some good comments to dialouge on this more; but in short my answers to those questions are simply, no and no.

It bears noting that there was no public outcry for the fake brick crossings in the downtown area, and yet the project moved forward.  There was also no public vote to find out what the majority of citizens thought of the expenditure of their tax dollars to fund the project.  Let me be quick to say that I have no idea how much the project costs and am not making any judgment on whether it was "the right thing to do" or not.  I'd just like to have a real productive discussion on how our system of government is set up, what the expectations of our elected officials should be, and on what basis they should make all policy decisions.

Any takers?

Boggling the Mind

I've been worried for some time that the American public in general and my generation in particular has become increasingly ignorant of critical thinking in terms of politics, law, government and the like.  Verification of this premise has been upheld time and again as articles in the local paper and from various news agencies continue to report a complete lack of understanding and reveal an overwhelming lack of serious thought about such serious issues.  A case in point arose this week in a nearby community.  I will leave the details out as the important issue is the fundamental ideas underpinning this and many other events of outrage ocurring on a daily basis nationwide.  The crux of the matter was a symbol of Christianity removed from a public place by a city coucil board due to a lawsuit filed and the accompanying fears that a legal defense would be too costly on an already depleated town budget based solely on "the seperation clause".

I put that last phrase in quotes because it was a direct quote from the news report I heard as I was working on some other things that caused me to jump out of my seat and exclaim to my wife "the what clause!?!"  I assumed what was being referenced was the statement regarding seperation of church and state that appeared in a personal letter that is in no way binding in any document recognized in the establishment of this nation.  My questions naturally were why didn't anyone question what was meant by "the seperation clause", why didn't the office receiving this filing to sue the township reject it out of hand and what must our nation be coming to when actions such as these are allowed to be passed off as legitimate practice.  I discovered that my assumption was correct and that there are a lot of other questions that need to be asked when any issue like this arises in public discourse.

Question #1: It is true that Thomas Jefferson wrote the letter which contains the phrase "seperation of church and state", however he also penned the pramble to the Constitution (the Declaration of Independence) among whose opening lines are "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  What view other than the Judeo-Christian one would provide for a statement such as that?  What other belief system used to establish a new government would believe that there is an undeniable truth common to all men that would hold that each and every human person was created by a Creator and endowed by that Creator with intrinsic worth (rights that no other person can give or take away)?

Question #2: What is the problem with holding firm and unwavering to the fundamental principles by which this nation was founded and at the same time allowing all other differing belief systems to live and engage in public life unmolested?  I just don't understand why the fact that non-Christian persons live in this country requires an abolition and outright rejection of the very principles that made this nation possible.  There is no disconnect whatsoever between a nation saying "We are based fundamentally and solely on Christian principles and biblical truth and will make every decision relative to the operation and function of this state in which you live based on those principles; since part of those principles call for the love of all men you may live among us without fear."

Question #3: Is there any other fight more directly linked to the protection of freedom than this one?  I realize we have troops stationed all over the world and many are in harms way even as I write this post, but this is my point.  They are fighting for what this nation was established upon, and if that foundation is being eroded while they are overseas fighting to what are they coming home?  From a more pragmatic point of view, if those who would reject any Judeo-Christian influence or thinking from even the decision-making processes of the government and legal systems with what do they propose to replace it that would make us more free?  Secularism?  Naturalism?  Materialism?  Communism?  AnyOtherIsm?

Finally it is worth observing that nothing is less tolerated today than the intolerant Judeo-Christian religion.  "Seperation of church and state" and "freedom of religion" are pillars of intolerance to the very principles that provide the underlying foundation on which the pillars are built.  In time, those who stand confident on such pillars will issue up a celebratory cry that finally there is freedom from the shackles of religious intolerance that has plagued the nation since it's inception, only to find out that their cries of success had drowned out the noise of the cracking of the foundation on which they stood.

We will no doubt hear more cases; all different in the specifics, but all the same in fundamentals.  I have used the imagery of pillars and foundations; the framework of the nation supported by ideas and ideals well known and unconfused at inception but now clouded and sullied by bad thinking and modern misconceptions.  It is not very different than walking out to the end of a branch while setting fire to the trunk.  In the meantime perhaps someone can bring some meaningful answers to my questions.

Foundations of Environmental Concern

The following post is a collection of thoughts that I have been mulling over and thinking about for a number of years.  I recently put all that thinking into a three part write-up (much abbreviated from the more comprehensive thought process that developed from a single question).  Below are parts 1, 2 and 3 of an argument made to answer a pretty fundamental question.  I hope it will engender as much thought for you the reader as it has been, and continues to be, for me.

Part 1 - Who Cares?


C.S. Lewis in his essay "First and Second Things" says "You can't get to second things by putting them first; you can get second things only by putting first things first." He presents the illustration elsewhere of beginning with a line, connecting lines to form a square, and finally combining squares to form a cube. The cube is three dimensional but remains based upon lines.

A recent local newspaper series presented 6 articles presenting facts about the environment and some suggestions of how to address the concerns that followed. The articles were well done and well presented but as it seems is often the case, passed by the first principle: namely, why should anyone care about the environment? You see, if there's no good reason to care about the state of the environment then what is going on, the causes of the current condition and what any possible remedies might be are meaningless.

I see three broad categories of possibility relative to this first principle; this fundamental question “Why should anyone care about the environment?”, namely the scientific approach, the pure environmentalist approach, and the religious approach.

Care in this context is defined as: "an object of concern or attention." We also understand that the caring we are talking about is an emotional as well as moral condition. We can easily see this by example. Consider a man with a child who says he cares for the child because he gets a lot of dates by taking the child out in public where women are attracted to how well he gets along with children. We would not say this man cares for his child, rather we would say he is using the child because he cares only for himself. Now consider a man who leaves a gathering with friends to spend an evening at home with his daughter. In this case, we would say the man cares for the child, even if it means sacrificing himself. The difference is that when we speak of genuine caring what we mean is caring for something for its own sake. So what we are asking is why should we care for the environment for its own sake? Why should we care for the environment like the second man cares for his daughter?

By clearly describing our terms a problem arises for everyone who would say that science is all important in this discussion. The problem comes by the very definition of nature, or the environment, as it is taken by many in science today. In his "River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life", Richard Dawkins said, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: 'For Nature, heartless, witless Nature will neither care nor know.' DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." Scientific beginnings are based on the premise that we are here through a series of acts of random chance over a long period of time. We are an accident and so is everything that exists. Nothing is here through purpose or direction and there is no real value or meaning to anything except as we assign it. If this is the case then there is no reason to care about anything; why would one accident care about another accident? As Dawkins quoted, DNA neither cares nor knows.

One might say, "But if we don't care for the environment humankind will be wiped out." That may very well be true, and since DNA neither knows nor cares, and since the universe is blind, pitiless and indifferent; then quite literally if we cannot adapt to the new environment the natural and inevitable result will be extinction; that's just the way of things. If we look carefully we can see the real motivation behind that statement; fear and selfishness. We are afraid of becoming extinct and we think first of ourselves. But this is not caring for the environment for its own sake, this is caring about ourselves. So what's the big deal, another might say, so what if selfishness is the motivation so long as it turns around the current condition of the environment? Well, if selfishness is the acceptable motivation, then there is nothing that would compel a whole society to care for the environment. You see, there may be others who would say something like: "If it's OK to be selfish, forget about future generations. I’m going to do what's best for me right now and that's using up whatever I want and doing whatever is convenient for me. If that harms the environment, so be it." There is no difference between caring for the environment for selfish reasons and not caring for the environment for selfish reasons. What is left in that case is that whoever happens to be in power forces everyone to comply with his/her selfish desire; in other words, might makes right.

What I am not doing here is saying whether this line of thinking is right or wrong. The logical outworking of the idea that nothing exists but the natural, that only the most popular scientific approach is valid is that one doesn't care for the environment for its own sake, but rather for selfish reasons. Therefore, there is no good reason to be concerned with what happens around us for better or for worse. Put another way, if nature is blind, pitiless and indifferent then there is no legitimate argument against an attitude of indifference by humankind towards nature; one accident equally unconcerned about another accident.


Part 2 - When Caring Isn't Enough
 
Last time we discussed first principles, how we oftentimes skip them to get on to second principles, and how that can present problems in our thinking. We discussed a purely scientific approach to the environment and how ultimately if the universe is all there is, just a thoughtless, directionless, purposeless, blind, pitiless and indifferent accident then there is no reason to care about the environment for its own sake. The word caring is used when the actual motivation is selfishness. Based on first principles in this case, there is no need to spend time concerning ourselves with the state of our surrounding environment or methods to mitigate the effects of our actions. If there is no real logical reason to care then the rest becomes a waste of time.

Now we turn to the one who would characterize themselves as caring for the environment for its own sake, the pure environmentalist. They love nature and have always been somehow drawn to its beauty on the one hand and its power and ferocity on the other. They acknowledge the facts of science but have the sense that all that is around them can't be just a huge cosmic accident. They don't ascribe to any religion, just feel themselves to be going with what feels right and wanting to make their lives count for something bigger than themselves. This is a consistent position. The one who honestly doesn't know how everything got here, and just wants to follow what for them is an inexorable tug toward "saving the planet" does acknowledge that there is more to the universe than blind, pitiless indifference; even if they don't know what. Their concern is an emotional and moral condition, and to be consistent their life would have to be lived in accordance with those beliefs and they would passionately compel all who would listen to join them in their love for the planet.

There is a problem, however, with this line of thinking. The problem is the emotional, passionate and moral convictions regarding the environment are totally personal. That person may live in a "green" home, bike everywhere as a means of transportation, recycle or reuse everything from water bottles to paper towels, conserve water and energy and spend every free minute advocating for environmental concerns. Their next door neighbor, however, could consume with complete abandon, own three vehicles with single-digit gas mileage, litter and waste with impunity, and spend his free time doing yard maintenance using every gas guzzling tool, poison and chemical currently available. There is nothing that would legitimately compel the neighbor to change his behavior because the position of the one who loves the environment is purely personal. What is lacking is authority. Someone in authority that could compel, or even mandate, that every single person has the responsibility to care for the environment. With this knowledge, the person who holds this position, out of a genuine concern for the world around them has no choice but to pursue a concerted effort to lobby government to force everyone to love the planet as much as they. We are again left with a position of might makes right; those in power forcing others to capitulate.

There is another possibility in this area, and that is the person who would say that they worship the environment. We use terminology like "mother earth" and "mother nature" without thinking and as a matter of common expression; but there might be one that says the earth gave birth to humankind and so we should worship our maker; our mother nature. They might even remind everyone that there have been people groups worshipping the earth and stars throughout recorded history. In this case, the proponent would care for the environment for its own sake, and would have what they considered to be authority to compel everyone else to care in the same way. It seems this would finally be a legitimate way to say that humankind really should care about the environment. However, there again is a major problem. The reason we are talking about this topic is because we are concerned that we are destroying the earth with our actions. Why on earth would we worship a creator that its creation could destroy? This has always been a problem with worshipping the natural. It just doesn't make sense for a human being to worship something that he or she has the capability to destroy. We shouldn't have that much power over the object from which we supposedly gain our authority.

So it seems we are still at a loss, and in search of some way of thinking that gives us a legitimate reason to really care for the environment. Next time we will continue the search and discover that there is in fact a legitimate reason for all humankind to care for the environment.


Part 3 - Freedom in Knowing

In our first discussion, we asked the question why should anyone care about the environment? We looked at the position of pure science. We learned that on this view the universe, nature is all there is and that it neither cares nor knows. It is simply illogical and inconsistent then to suppose that humankind should care a wit about this accidental happening that has no purpose or direction. We are left with a motivation of selfishness and are left with might makes right as the only recourse for any widespread concern.

Last time we looked at those who would love the earth for its own sake. First the one who doesn't really know how things got here but see the beauty and feel an emotional and moral disposition toward the environment. We saw that this, although consistent, is entirely personal and would not serve to compel all of humankind to the same behavior. We also considered one who would worship nature, which presented the problem of humans worshiping the very thing they were afraid of destroying. This position also cannot be true.

Things are looking bleak. If science, nor a heartfelt personal love nor promotion of nature to the status of deity provide any real legitimate reason to care for the environment then all seems to be lost. Let's not give up so soon. Instead, let's take just a minute and piece together those fundamental problem areas with our other possibilities and see if there is anything that meets all those criteria. For science, the problem was purpose. There was no purpose or direction in the universe so the only motivation remaining was selfishness and fear. For the second group the problem was authority. A personal concern couldn't hold sway over all of humankind, and elevating nature to the level of deity produced a sort of "god" with no real power. So, we need to solve the problem of purpose and authority. We also need to preserve the existence of nature and humankind, the emotional and moral aspects which we know to be true of any real caring, and remain logically consistent. The only thing that meets all these criteria is a single God the reason for whose existence is within Himself that created the universe (including all nature and mankind) and therefore has authority over everything, who created mankind with emotional and moral direction and purpose and gave mankind the command to protect the environment and the authority to do so.

In the Judeo-Christian position these very criteria are specifically addressed in scripture. Genesis 1:1, John 8:58-59, Colossians 1:16-20 and others speak to God's existence being eternal and not dependent on anything outside Himself. Genesis chapters 1 and 2 and others speak to God's creation of the universe and everything in it (including all nature and mankind). The entirety of scripture speaks to the emotional and moral direction and purpose of all mankind and the requirement for a change in their very nature to become a new creation and become like their Lord. In Genesis 1:26-31 and 2:8-15 man is installed as caretaker over creation.

I recognize there are many who do not believe in God at all, much less the God of the Christian faith. What I am saying is that there is no other legitimate source or reason for caring for the environment. It is also important to point out that many will decide to just ignore or reject this entire line of thinking simply because God and the bible were mentioned. However, without a legitimate, logically consistent reason for all mankind to be genuinely concerned for the environment, the issue will inevitably digress into a matter of which group is in power and can force everyone else to do what they feel is right.

I would also like to challenge all followers of Christ who may not have considered the solid foundation on which they stand in this issue. Because Christians have as their belief the reason to genuinely be concerned about the condition of the environment to which we've been entrusted, believers should be on the forefront of being caretakers of all creation. We have been given dominion to utilize the natural elements around us for food, shelter, and general benefit, but not in a reckless, haphazard, or thoughtless manner. We care not because we are scared we will destroy the world, but because we are afraid of disobeying our Lord’s directive.

Now that we have established the existence and nature of the legitimate and logically consistent reason to care for the environment; now that we have considered first principles, we can move on to second things, and look with renewed interest at the current conditions and decide if we are in fact taking care of the environment that was entrusted to us. We can investigate the effects of our actions and think about the ramifications of continuing or changing our current behavior. We can legitimately challenge all humankind to examine our common directive for stewardship, develop means and methods of environmental preservation based on data gathered and reported through scientific inquiry, balance those recommendations against the other moral directives from scripture, and make the best decisions possible as a matter of obedience to the Creator of man and nature. Although a tedious exercise, there is freedom in knowing that there is a legitimate reason why we all should care about the environment, and furthermore having been given a mandate and the authority to do just that.