Judging is a very peculiar thing, the ultimate
double edged sword. The moment we are asked to assess anything, whether it
is a situation, the colour of a pair of pants and how it may go with a
shirt, when is the right moment to make a turn while driving, human behavior
and so on, we have to make a judgment call. If it is wrong to judge then why
are we constantly being called upon to do so in everyday life? All of these
situations require a judgment call which, if made incorrectly, could have
dire consequences.
What is the difference between having to judge
a life situation and judging a person? Either way one is ultimately having
to make a comparative assessment. In a situation, we generally try to
conclude what is most beneficial for one’s own interest, with few
exceptions. One could either be simply stating a fact about a person’s
behaviour or accusing the other of being "bad or evil" compared to the
presumed "goodness" on the part of the accuser; the person's "being" is
being accused and therefore judged. Under all circumstances, one must try to
separate the truth of a situation based upon what ones concept of truth is.
The mere fact that, due to the imperfection of our senses and personal
biases, everyone has a slightly different concept of the same things,
removes the absoluteness of one person’s assessment, reducing it to one's
best guess or a personal opinion. Although it is very important to call “a
spade a spade,” and leaving aside the very necessary need to assess life
situations, at what point does this process constitute judgment, judging or
“judgmentalism?”
If someone lies to us, it would be prudent to
understand that one is dealing with a potential liar. And, if we are in a
situation where there is, for example, a financial transaction and we know
that we are dealing with someone who lies, most people would agree that they
should not, for the sake of their own interests and preservation, put their
trust in a person who would willingly or deliberately lie or mislead to
further their own interest. Would labeling such a person as a liar,
constitute a judgment against that person? Some might agree, others might
state that they are merely stating an obvious fact and therefore not
judging.
When does stating a fact become a judgment?
What is the difference? In the case mentioned above, when one clearly stands
to lose, one can justifiably state, “I will not deal with you because you
cannot be trusted on account of you being a liar! Is this the judgment that
the Bible speaks of? Or, would it be better to state; “I will not deal with
you because you cannot be trusted on account of your lying.” The first
statement is accusing someone of being in a very specific "pejorative
state," while the latter statement identifies the action without condemning
the person directly. Some might say that hairs are being split here, but in
order to make the first statement, one is stating that the person who has
lied is "evil" compared to the presumed "goodness" of the accuser. The
latter statement does not attack the person, it identifies the action
separate from the person. One is an attack; the other is a candid
observation. Both statements might be true, but the latter, by identifying
the act itself separate from the person, is merciful.
If you are defending yourself and your
interests through the knowledge gained from a factual observation this
cannot be construed as unjust nor an injustice. We have been given a faculty
that it might be put to good use. Our perceptions have no worth and would
serve no purpose if we could not process them, analyze them and learn from
them. It would seem that conclusions drawn from cold blooded observation
made without prejudice can be more accurately described as discernment
rather than actual judgment; a deliberate breakdown and analysis of a
situation. And, in the process a decision is made towards an action that is
in one’s own best interest. This is not necessarily a judgment between what
is good and what is not good (evil).
There is a paradox however. In the example of
lying, there is not a person on Earth who can honestly say that they have
never lied. Everyone has lied at some point in their lives. Does this make
everyone a liar? And, if everyone has lied, how can one person justifiably
call another who is lying a liar without being a hypocrite?
A lie is more than a mere untruth. It is a
deliberate statement intended to mislead, ultimately costing people their
time and energy. People can lie for self interest or to protect another
person, out of selfishness, mischievousness or even out of love. Those who
would deliberately do you harm using the truth or, who cannot face the
truth, do not deserve the truth. An omission is not necessarily a lie; it
can however be a deception. Deliberate deception is loveless and is merely a
lie of a different colour.
Example:
In a situation where someone is
being forced to disclose the whereabouts of another for the purpose of doing
them harm and they deliberately offer the wrong information; are they lying?
Say this were a mother being asked to disclose her child's whereabouts in a
situation where there were no illegalities. Out of love for her child the
mother would likely lie to protect her child. In this case the interrogators
would not deserve to know the truth. If the mother was otherwise a
forthright and honest person, in this specific and dire circumstance, even
though the mother deliberately gave the wrong information, could she
legitimately be labeled a liar for having not told the absolute truth out of
necessity given the circumstances?
Another Example:
Two people; one
trusting, the other exceptionally clever but self interest motivated, one
trusting in the word of the other while the other seeks their own interest
through the others blind trust in them, outwardly appearing to be acting in
complete friendship, trust and accord. In reality this is a one sided
friendship; one is using the other's trust against them. In a business deal,
one pledges that he will give half of all proceeds from the deal to the
other. The other, having already decided what he will do, deliberately does
not respond, cleverly allowing the other to believe that he feels and will
act in the same manner and in the same “spirit.” When the time comes the
latter deliberately intends to deceive the other with premeditation. The
latter has no intention of honoring a mutual 50/50 implied agreement.
Did the second party, by not saying anything, lie? Technically, in a lawyer's
reasoning, no! This is deception because of the deliberate and premeditated
intent of the latter, based on knowing the formers' unwavering trust and
belief that the other is his friend in the Christian sense of friendship and
the belief held by the latter that the former is just stupid and is very
easily played. Trust, to someone who would do this, is considered stupidity.
(Although it must be conceded that this type of behaviour is justifiable
under
certain circumstances, it should not exist among friends.) Did the latter through deliberate omission lie? Can they be called a liar?
Can the former, by having trusted in the long time friend, be called stupid
for having trust his friend's verbal "sleight of hand?" Granted,
if someone habitually does not think about their circumstances and the behaviour of the people in them, it can be said that they deserve what they
have coming to them by virtue of their own negligence or mental laziness.
But, in friendship there should be some consideration for longstanding and
acquired goodwill. If this does not exist, then the intent behind Christ's
second commandment of loving one's fellow man would be for naught. The above
situation is an excellent formula for perpetual turmoil rather than a
lasting peace and friendship.
What to do and how to handle oneself without
being in judgment of the people in these situations.
No person who is knowingly acting in the wrong
likes to have it pointed out or, even worse, being ‘caught in the act.” All
criminals act in secret as much as possible because they know that what they
are doing is wrong, so they hide either themselves physically or their
unseen intentions. If someone who is actively lying or deceiving to achieve
their end is caught at their game, it is a severe blow to his ego. He would
not engage in this type of behavior if he did not think he were smarter or
in some way better than his victim. In Christian terms this is pride – clear
and simple.
To “call” someone on what he is doing can be
either merciful or judgmental.
To say to a liar, “my dear sir I will not deal
with you because I do not and cannot believe you and you are giving me
reason not to trust you. In future if you refrain from this behavior we
might have dealings again, but until then I will not,” constitutes a
statement of fact with a potential for possible future forgiveness based on
sincerely improved behaviour (this rarely happens). This constitutes
the statement of a fact. On the other hand to say, “You are a liar!” is a
judgment. Although true, this is an accusation and therefore a judgment. The
person making the accusation has likely lied before in his own life, and
based on facts has come to this conclusion, or he might be an even bigger
crook than the person he is accusing. In other words, to accuse someone
outright in this manner of anything is to place oneself above the other
person and constitutes judgment. The judge thinks himself better than the
one he is accusing and therefore feels justified in judging them. In the
categorical stating that one is a liar there is also no room for forgiveness
and thereby one person is further condemning the other. The root of judgment
is therefore a severe lack of humility and consequently a lack of love for
ones fellow man. In short, to say to someone, "You are lying," is
discernment. To call them a liar is to judge - the action, versus the
person.
When Mary Magdalene had been accused of being a
whore and about to be stoned, Christ asked those in the crowd who were
zealously anxious to kill her, “let the first of you who has not sinned
cast the first stone.” Immediately, each of the would-be killers dropped
their stones as they had accused themselves and could not in good conscience
condemn another.
Are we not in this exact same situation almost
on a daily basis?
Not only are we called upon to not judge in
this manner, we are also asked to always forgive one another as part of not
judging. This does not mean that we are to tolerate all manner of nonsense,
debauchery, immorality, lewdness, thievery, general abusiveness etc. that
goes on all around us. Tolerance has nothing to do with accepting evil. It
has to do with accepting that we are all at fault in one way or another and
should overlook the minor shortcomings we all have and that no one is
completely innocent of. Major shortcomings that would affect us adversely or
even endanger our lives physically, emotionally or spiritually should not
and cannot not be tolerated. A judicious and vigilant discernment becomes
necessary for our own sanity and self preservation.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
In other words if you judge, you are not being forgiving and not allowing
for forgiveness. In this lies one’s own judgment and condemnation. If you
will not forgive another you cannot expect the Father to forgive you either.
Condemn not, lest ye be condemned. There are several parables that
describe this in Matt 7, Matt 18.
Some may have a hard time accepting that all of
us contain all possible sins and the potential urges to commit them. That is
to say, everyone is capable of lying, killing, stealing, unusual sexual
behavior, and so on but the urge is deliberately controlled by the
conscience, maturity or the situation. The restraint in one more than
another makes one less of a sinner than another but ultimately no one is
without these urges and we are all therefore sinners. Christ stated to
one of His apostles who had an urge while observing a young beautiful woman.
Christ said that the action to follow through on the urge was not necessary
as the sin was already in the heart. The presence of the urge was
already the sin.
Absolute pureness and the clarity that comes
because of it is generally not part of physical existence. No one should
accuse another or not allow for the possibility of forgiveness to another
person of what is also potentially in us too. We could, but then we would be
violating God’s request that we love our fellow man which is a judgment upon
us. What God looks at is what is in our heart and we are judged based on
that by Him. It is entirely possible to sincerely mean well and cause a
problem. In man’s law you are punished even when you might not be guilty in
the eyes of God.
The larger question may be why do people who
judge feel the need to? Many have suggested that it is due to having a big
ego. But, fundamentally it would seem to arise from an inner torment or a
lack of inner peace; a thirst to right a subconscious wrong within
themselves that they can no longer remember. Often the one who is doing the
judging is, more often than not, also guilty of what they are judging
another person of or has extensive experience with it and has overcome the
need for the action. By openly condemning the other they feel that they
exonerate themselves before others or that they are better than those they
judge. Clearly this is hypocrisy working overtime! Who could be more able to
catch a liar in their lie than another liar, or a reformed liar; who would
know the process of lying better? Or, there are those who have exceptional
powers of observation and would like that their exceptional talent be known,
and so they point out their often accurate observations to others under the
guise that they are trying to help them when in fact they are in love with
their own ability and/or the potential discord that might ensue (If they
like to fight). In the right light, these types of observations would be
quite helpful and invaluable as we are all in need of seeing ourselves more
clearly that we might better ourselves through this knowledge. But, there is
a point of diminishing returns; to quote Matthew, “Why dost thou try to
point out the mote in mine eye. Rather than pulling out the beam in thine
own eye first.” (paraphrased) Matt. 7, Matt 18. There comes a point
where these “well meaning” observations can become perpetual, then, they
would cease to be mere helpful observations and become personal criticisms,
even attacks on the very being of a person and then they could crush the
person at the receiving end. At this point the attacked must make a choice,
either 1) become like his attacker; the attacker seeing the conformity of
the attacked and recognizing himself in the attacked will stop the attack
because now they are of one mind, 2)leave or, 3)shrivel up and be crushed.
An attack of this kind, if severe enough and prolonged enough, could
literally remove the very "turf" upon which one stands. In the end, this is
all any person really has and according to Paracelsus could constitute the
grounds of the ailment "Insanity" to take hold. At this point, if we indeed
reap what we sow, this judgment upon the receiver will come back to haunt
the judge.
We should be reminded and reminded often that
only God is all knowing, truly good and ultimately truly just therefore only
God can be our one and only judge. To presume to judge another would mean as
much as to presume to take Gods place and be above God Himself.
Every human being has their life from God and
therefore contains also the spark of God, which is their life, within them.
The fact that they exist also means that they are loved by God. Even though
all of us already potentially contain the fullest wisdom within the spark of
light that the Father gives us and reflects His image within us, we are born
into this life with inborn limitations that we should strive to overcome.
These limitations are presented to us as part of our schooling and spiritual
maturation during our sojourn on Earth. Given that many of us on Earth have
a difficult time finding out what the limitations we are born with are and,
their ramifications, one person has no right to condemn another person
simply because clearer powers of observation were granted them by the
Father. Having such an ability and presuming to call all others who do not
have it “stupid” would be the height of pompousness and arrogance as well as
being in contempt of Christ second commandment; love and treat your
fellow man as you would love and treat yourself. Where there is
pompousness and arrogance there can be no humility and consequently no real
love other than love of self! All other beings are God's creations also. To
insult Gods creations is to insult God.
Our limitations are meant to teach us humility.
And those who are more gifted ought to be even more humble because what they
have been permitted is not out of them but has been allowed out of the grace
and mercy of God for a specific purpose and for the benefit of all, rather
than to be wasted on the demeaning of others. Furthermore, it is much easier
to use that gift to observe the actions of others than to use it to improve
or correct one's own behaviour! To call another person “stupid” is as much
as saying that God does not know how to manage His own creation through the
limitations that the Father deliberately placed on a specific person; the
implication being that God Himself is stupid. Clearly it takes a certain
personality to make such a statement. Stupor is merely a state of not being
able to clearly perceive. This is what makes all of us imperfect, so no one
should demean, belittle or otherwise imply, address or describe anyone as
stupid. Some of us just see a little better than others. To flagrantly call
someone stupid is to judge and to be above God's judgment and to insult Gods
judgment, and management over His own creation.
When it comes right down to it, the main reason
why we really have no right to judge another person is that we simply have
no jurisdiction to do so. We are creations of God, not each other; no other
being created life other than God and there is no life He does not maintain
or control. In absolute terms, if we can accept that God is our collective
Creator then He and only He has jurisdiction over everything and no one else
has jurisdiction over anything then, He is and can be the only judge. In
absolute terms, one person does not have jurisdiction over another. This
only happens in man's world, but not in God's creation. All that is, is
God's; no one can be judge of what is not theirs.
All of us coexist within God's creation and
must cooperate towards His ultimate good. Therefore, we are to love God
First and one another second and in order to be in good order we must be
forgiving for the ultimate good and order of all.
The shortcomings we are all carrying and
observe in others are to teach us and give us experience with and a working
knowledge of good and evil and are therefore there and exist for our
benefit. They serve an important purpose. We should learn from them without
condemning what we have been presented with. Furthermore, no one knows
another person's actual burden nor can another person know in absolute terms
the purpose, in spiritual terms, that an individual has been allotted by and
through the Wisdom of Divine Providence aside from their mundane activity.
Job is the best example of unquestioning faith in God in the face of
absolute hopelessness without questioning or retaliating against God.
If one is at peace within the need to have to
torment another person through judgment should not arise. By placing God and
love for God first, a person cannot not love everything that God created.
Even though evil is not to be loved, as such, it should at least be
respected as it is tolerated and permitted to exist and in its blindness
must still ultimately serve the Creator.
In
closing:
"It is better to tolerate
than be tolerated."
Tell a Friend About Us
