On a previous blog entry, I received the following comment:

I think that there is a difference between criticising people and judging them. That’s why we have a legal system where there is a judge, an advocate and a prosecutor.

I think this is something that needs to be discussed in more detail than the comment box allows, so rather than responding there, I am posting my reply as a new entry. First, some definitions:

CRITICISE, v.i. s as z.

To examine and judge critically; to judge with attention to beauties and faults; as, to criticise on a literary work, on an argument or discourse.

JUDGE, v.i. [L. judico.]

1. To compare facts or ideas, and perceive their agreement or disagreement, and thus to distinguish truth from falsehood.

2. To form an opinion; to bring to issue the reasoning or deliberations of the mind.

(Webster’s 1828 Dictionary)

Overall, to criticize and to judge are essentially the same thing, the primary difference being that judgment may be made falsely, as on the basis of false information, while a criticism has the connotation of a judgment made on the basis of some recognized standard. For example, making a judgment on the basis of rumor, innuendo, speculation, and facts taken out of context and misrepresented is to make a false judgment. To represent such false judgments to others as the truth would definitely put the person into the category of a “false prophet.”

The major problem we face, and the point of the opening paragraphs in the previous essay, is that we have limited knowledge and understanding. To execute perfect judgment requires perfect knowledge, and lacking that perfection, our judgment is always impaired to some extent. When corrupt desires and other human failings are involved, the situation gets even worse. We often see a failure of justice in the judicial system precisely for these reasons. In many cases, not all facts are allowed to be presented, or are presented out of context, such that the facts appear in a distorted form. Corrupt judges and lawyers will make the situation even worse.

Justice must flow like torrents of water, righteous actions like a stream that never dries up. (Amo 5:24 NET Bible)

But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. (Amo 5:24 KJV)

Here is an interesting point to ponder - the translation of the KJV uses “judgment” as an equivalent to “justice” in the more modern translation. The true goal of judgment and/or criticism is to do justice. Justice is “the virtue which consists in giving to every one what is his due.” This generally involves equal treatment to all, but equality is not the whole picture. Justice also requires consideration of exigent circumstances and mitigating factors and some exceptions may need to be made from time to time. In other words, justice can never be achieved unless the participants are treated as individuals first and foremost, and all relevant facts in their situation are considered. Nevertheless, the basic principle of justice is that we are required to treat others as we expect to be treated. To do otherwise is to become a hypocrite. (That is the point of what Jesus said in Matthew 7.)

Moreover, justice requires that all rights AND obligations are met. No justiciable right exists in a vacuum, but is always accompanied by some corresponding obligation. Justice can never be fulfilled unless the obligations are simultaneously met. The ancient maxim is that those with unclean hands will not receive relief, even in equity, with the point being that no one can claim an injustice unless he has first met his own obligations. (One who seeks equity must do equity.) This is generally what makes people into hypocrites. They demand their “rights” while failing in their corresponding obligations.

This pairing of rights and obligations is key to understanding covenants. No covenant can exist unless both parties understand and agree to the terms and conditions. When exercising judgment we have to first look at the obligations of both parties and determine if all obligations have been met. We must also consider the situation of each person as an individual, factoring in their unique needs and abilities. Then, and only then, can we make a fair judgment.

Understanding covenants is key to understanding the Bible. The Christian scriptures are, after all, divided into an Old Covenant and a  New Covenant. Covenant relationships are found throughout the scriptures and apply to our relationships to each other as well as our relationship with God. As I have tried to get across in my writings, faith is a form of covenant relationship - the binding of one to another. We also have statements like this:

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Mat 18:18-20)

The “binding” spoken of here is within the context of “two shall agree” and that latter part is generally ignored. I hope to write about this some more in the future. For now, all I can do is point out that many are trying to “bind in Jesus name” with no effect and don’t understand why. Understand the whole passage and it should become obvious.

In our covenant relationship with God, it was and is man’s obligation to worship Him. That is His due. When man fails to worship God, man has failed His primary obligation and God is just in abandoning man to mans’ folly (See Rom. chapter 1).  Our New Covenant in Jesus gives us hope since our obligation is to “live by faith” - something that we can do. Those who meet that obligation have all the rights that Jesus has declared to us. Those who do not live by faith, can never claim the promises that Jesus provides.

It’s a fairly common (and typical) human pastime to categorize, divide, discern and separate people. Pondering this, I conclude this is part of the “survival mechanism” of the carnal mind. The unknown is potentially dangerous and thus our instinct is to turn the unknown into the known by slapping a label onto it. Then we have the illusion of safety in the familiarity of the thing. Unfortunately, the only way we know to do this is to put the thing into an already known category based on similarity of appearance, filtering out what doesn’t fit. And so it goes.

Ah, but we know that appearances can be deceiving and our constant attempts at categorization tend to mislead. So, what “appearances” SHOULD we take into account?

Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will recognize them by their fruit. (Mat 7:15-20)

Well, there you go. Hmmm. I have a question… What is the “good fruit” that identifies the good tree? To hear most people talk about it, usually they consider “good fruit” to mean: “You are like me.” Yes, indeed, the ol’ ego gets right in there and starts to work. If I am OK, then to be OK, you must be like…. ME! Religion usually works that way. If you do OUR rituals, wear the same clothes we do, etc. then you are one of US and must be one of “God’s special chosen ones.” HAH HAH. I don’t think that’s what Jesus is talking about here.

Here’s the conundrum as I see it. We tend to think in “existentialist” terms - that you are what you do - and the comments of Jesus appear to confirm that. But, reading more carefully, the opposite is truly what He meant - you do what you are. In order to bear good fruit, your nature must be that of the good tree. So, we can’t and MUST not just look at the outward appearance. But the projected appearance is the only thing we really CAN see! Yikes. To know “good fruit” means we need a benchmark that is a valid and correct one to compare against - one that truly represents the inner being not just the outward appearance. Well, here it is:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also behave in accordance with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, being jealous of one another. (Gal 5:22-26)

So, now we know. All we need to do is change the inner nature to one of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and self-control and then we can bear fruit. And if we find someone who lacks self-control, love, peace and patience, we know that the actions of that person are not guided by the spirit. Likewise, if our own actions are not based on self-denial out of love for others, we know we need an inner change as well, so that we will produce the good fruit of the Spirit of Christ.

How ya gonna do that? How can an impatient person become patient? How can an insecure person become secure? How can a person without self-control control the self? Can’t be done. Except, we have this promise:

Remain in me, and I will remain in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me. “I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in me and I in him bears much fruit, because apart from me you can accomplish nothing. (Joh 15:4-5)

So there it is. To “remain in Christ” is just another way of saying “Have Faith in Jesus.” He will change YOU when YOU no longer try to put on “good fruit” but only seek to put aside the ME so that the HIM can go to work. Not so hard to understand; a little difficult to do. It takes lots of practice.

It solves the problem of categorizing, and leads to the correct understanding of what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 7. His words must be taken in the larger context of “Judge not lest you be judged.” (Matt. 7:1) We don’t really need to have a “survival mechanism” that forces us to judge, condemn, categorize, limit and dismiss others. The self no longer needs to be protected and preserved since it remains in Christ. I don’t need the others to tell me WHAT to do since the Christ in me tells me that. I don’t need to tell others what to do either, only show them the Spirit of Christ working in me. Having that Spirit in me, I can now recognize it, or the lack of it, in others. And knowing through experience that the Spirit of Christ leads to self-denial I now have a valid benchmark. Where there is self-preserving condemnation, I know it is not the Spirit of Christ.

That does not give me the right to condemn in return, as to do so is to split myself from Christ. In the original context, the “cut down and throwing into the fire” is something that will be done by God when it is His time to do so. I don’t have to worry about that. To know the false-prophets is not for the purpose of condemnation, only that we do not be drawn away from Jesus into some man-made solution. I remain in Him; He remains in me. I am not threatened, since my well-being is not dependent on the thoughts and actions of others. Thus I do not need to condemn, but only to love those who need love.