from Theological Issues

Reclaiming Necessary Judgment and Conditions
for Living in God's World

People of faith must not shrink back from making prudent judgments--spoken in humility--about the way God calls us to live in the world.

Rev. Dr. Russell G. Waldrop,
Pastoral Counselor, Psychiatric Chaplain
Licensed Professional Counselor

Chairperson, Interfaith Committee on Theological Concerns- NARTH

"Unconditional acceptance" and a "non-judgmental attitude" have been almost sovereign tenets of life since popularized in theology by Paul Tillich and in psychology by Carl Rogers and their disciples and peers. From the abuse of such characteristics parents have learned to raise their children without conditions; schoolteachers have developed judgment-free curricula; and countless spouses have warded off one another's marital criticisms with the simple defense, "Honey, you're being judgmental."

Appeal can even be made to Holy Scripture to support the jettisoning of judgmental mindsets and conditional propositions in relationships. Since our own worst behavior apparently cannot separate us from God's love (Romans 8:31-39 and 1 John 4:10), it may seem inviting to insist that everyone abandon any judgment of anyone else in order to be more God-like, or so the modern call to "toleration," diversity," and "inclusion" may imply. Yet many who use such buzzwords seem unable to "tolerate" the idea that some judgments and conditions are necessary for behaving in a marriage, raising and teaching children, conducting a business, seeking or providing medical care, having strangers in the home, dating, loaning out your car or money, buying a house, voting in an election or a host of other situations common to daily living in the human condition.

Yet some might allege that Scripture itself speaks out against any human tendency to "judge" or set conditions on another's behavior. Didn't Jesus declare, "Judge not lest ye be so judged?" in Matthew 7:1? Didn't the Apostle Paul state that "When you judge another person you condemn yourself" in Rom. 2:1? Such proclamations abound in the literature of gay and lesbian activists who wrap themselves so tightly in what they see as "freedom of behavior" Scriptures that they miss the ringing call in other passages to exercise good, sound judgments in all of life, especially sex (1 Corinthians 6:1-20). Even their appropriate reminder of Paul's teaching that we are free to live by faith rather than by legalism (Galatians 5:1-5) is balanced by that same apostle's warnings against the misuse of freedom: "Some of you say that you can do anything you want to do, but I remind you that not everything is good for you" (1 Cor. 6:12) and "Should we keep on sinning just so God's grace can show up better? Of course not!" (Rom. 6:1) The fact that God's grace sets us all free from a legalistic lifestyle is no excuse, according to Paul, for sinful behavior (Rom. 6:15).

All of these Scriptures do have a point to make and it is this: there is a difference between being a "judgmental person" and in being a "person of good judgment." The former, a judgmental person, thrives on finding fault with others in order to be elevated above them. With no trace of a forgiving spirit, such a person yearns to hold court, pass the severest sentence, and carry out the punishment personally. On the other hand, a person of good judgment has an entirely different frame of reference. Such an individual knows that there are, indeed, both good judgments and bad ones and that there are often serious consequences to not judging dangerous, illegal, or manipulative behavior. Yet this person also brings with the judgment a desire to forgive and restore the person and the situation (but not without accountability and, hopefully, with the other's permission).

Interesting things can also be said about any preoccupation with being "unconditional." Is there any better example of a "condition" than the requirement of "being unconditional"? I once sat with a couple in pre-marital counseling and their conversation went something like this:

Sally: We have to be unconditional with each other or this relationship won't work at all. Don't you agree?

Tim: Well, sort of. But isn't that a condition, too?

Sally: What do you mean?

Tim: Well, I agree with the principle of being unconditional with each other in our relationship. But if that becomes the condition... well, then, that seems just as conditional as any other condition might be.

Sally: But all conditions are negative, aren't they? They prove that people don't really love and trust each other.

Tim: I don't agree. Our relationship could have conditions that are flexible and genuine; like honesty for example. But we might fib to each other on occasion. I hope we wouldn't break up over that. We would examine all that was happening to cause it. Then we forgive each other, re-commit ourselves to being honest and move on. Wouldn't we?

Sally: Ok, honey. I guess that's what I mean by "unconditional" anyway.

In this very subtle way, what had been a positive principle of interpersonal relationships was about to become a damaging condition in and of itself. The symbolic meaning was lost in the letter of the law as the "condition of no conditions" raised an ugly head.

Common sense would tell us that some judgments and conditions are necessary from a practical aspect. If no one can "make judgments," then Miss Oregon could not have been "judged" to be our newest Miss America. We could not have a jury system because members of the jury would be "judgmental" about someone's guilt or innocence. Judges could not exist for their very jobs are to be "judge-mental." There could be no surgery for that would involve medical judgments; there could be no educational system whereby teachers "judge" essay papers or test results; there could be no parental judgment involving discipline; and no marital judgments could be made as to the definition of spousal misconduct. We could not even have traffic laws for they involve someone's judgment that determines who "stops" or "yields" or who can or cannot make a U-turn.

In the great debate over homosexuality, some gays and lesbians play upon the sympathies of those who have bought into the "don't judge" and "don't set conditions" scripts of popular theology and psychology. Anyone who has a condition or judgment about much of anything might be vulnerable to accusations of " being too conditional" or of "being judgmental." One of their ploys consists of two words that they set in the context of the Bible. When they say, "Judge not," they often hit a nerve in Bible believing people who think that they have just been exposed as hypocrites. However, a closer inspection of those "judge not" passages reveals the Biblical distinction between good judgment and bad judgment, affirming the former while rejecting the latter.

Many of us back away from our convictions upon hearing that both Jesus and the Apostle Paul find them to be "judgmental." Two classic passages have been misused to create just such an emotional response. They are often quoted regarding any issue requiring good, sound judgment and it should not surprise us when we hear our own reservations about homosexual behavior being so challenged.

In the first passage Jesus says,

Judge not, so that you won't be judged; otherwise, you will be judged by the very judgment that you pronounce on others. The measure you give out will be the one by which you will be measured. Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but do not see the log in your own vision? How can you tell your brother, 'Let me get that speck out of your eye' when there is a log right there in your own eye? You hypocrite! First, take the log out of your own eye! Then your vision will be clear enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)

Clearly, this teaches that proper judgment of one's brother is delicate business indeed and that it takes clear-eyed vision to do so. However, once our own vision is clear, we are told to proceed with restoring the vision of others. This is not a prohibition of eye restoration but rather a kind of "manual" for doing so. For example, counselors are trained to know their own limits and not go into their client's deep psychological territory if they have not seen their way through their own unresolved issues. They need not have done so perfectly as can be seen in the imbalance of "speck" and "log." People with mere specks are not prevented from judging; their vision is basically good. Counselors with logjams of visual impairments cannot see clearly enough to make clinical judgments. There is hope, however, that more training might remove their blockages so that they may see clearly enough to treat the problems of others. Surely this is true in personal relationships as well.

Likewise, in our criticism of homosexuality, we may seem blind to heterosexual sins. Indeed, why do magazines like Playboy and Penthouse often receive just a "speck" of criticism compared to the "logs" that are flung at gay philosophy? Judgment does need to be evenhanded. It is a reflection of personal bias that holds the bull's-eye only over carefully selected targets, ignoring so many others. Vision that is wide, high and deep gives the best view when judgment is necessary.

Finally, the phrase "so that you won't be judged" is sometimes taken to mean that a person will not be judged, as long he or she has no judgments to make. Making people, or a society, "judgment free" is not the point at all. The meaning is this: if I live by the judgments I make, I won't have a problem when those judgments are thrown back upon me. For example, if I make the judgment that "stealing is wrong" and I do not steal, what harm is there if I am, in fact, judged by my own standards? Having my own judgments come back to bite me is a problem only if I do not live by those standards. That is the hypocrisy Jesus thus warned against, not the making of judgments per se.

The context here is especially significant. Paul has just made his famous "judgment" on male and female homosexual behavior, completely rejecting both as any kind of "alternative lifestyle" because of its deviation from the heterosexual model ordained by God. He said,

For this reason God gave them over to degraded passions. Their women exchanged natural sexual intercourse for an unnatural one; similarly, the men gave up natural sexual intercourse with women and became consumed with passion for each other. They committed shameless acts with other men and thus received in their own personhoods the due penalty for their serious error. (Rom. 1:26-27)

Does Paul turn now from such "judgmental" pronouncements to espouse a "Judge not" position just six verses later? Some would claim that Paul is contradicting himself but the full statement reveals otherwise. He continued to say,

So, do you pass judgment on others? If you do, you have no excuse, whoever you are, if you make such judgments and then do the very things that you yourself condemn. We know that God is right when he judges people who do these things. But you, my friend, are guilty of doing the very things that you judge in others. Do you actually think you are going to get away with that and avoid God's judgment of you?! No, you won't! (Rom. 2:1-5).

We find much similarity here with what we saw previously in Jesus' own "Judge not" statement. The problem is not about having or making judgments. The problem is in not living according to the judgments one makes and then condemning others who also do not live by them.

Interestingly enough, the Apostle Paul goes on to name 20 or so evils in addition to homosexual behavior (Rom. 1:29-31). Why, then, do so many critics of homosexuality focus entirely on this one sin at the exclusion of the others? It may be because the other sins are so common and seemingly benign. This list includes envy, deceit, foolishness, haughtiness, and disobedience to parents. It seems that gay and lesbian people have a valid claim of abuse when these other sins, common to us all, are ignored and homosexuality is magnified. A truly Biblical approach would be evenhanded about this, not drawing the bulls-eye over some sins while pronouncing upon others the Blessing of Triviality.

In conclusion, we see that judgments and conditions are necessary to living our lives in safety and integrity. We all judge others and their behavior and we are all judged by one another. We all set conditions for certain behavior, depending upon the nature of our relationships; and we accept the fact that others have the responsibility to set conditions for our involvement in their lives. No one needs to wince or back down from his or her beliefs about human behavior, sexual or otherwise. There is ample room for disagreement, as this great debate shows. But the accusations of gay activists that people who have reservations about homosexuality are "judgmental" and "conditional" are wearing pretty thin. The sting is gone. We will wince no more.

September 30, 2001

Updated: 3 September 2008

Join us at the next NARTH Convention and Training Institute in beautiful Denver, Colorado on November 7, 8, and 9, 2008.



CLICK HERE FOR A SCHEDULE OF EVENTS OR TO REGISTER!