"Be the Lord's, Not Judgmental"
Rom.14:1-13 June 23/02
The Critics' Club
Siskel & Ebert have nothing on me. I'm a born critic. Whether it be the influence on me as a fallen human by the one the Bible calls the "Accuser" (Satan) or whether it's the outcome of my own pride and selfishness, I find it hard to resist passing judgment on others. It's just too tempting to let some things go by, right? Ol' Mr.Smarty-pants, Mr.Self-Righteous, has to let slip a critical comment, that little correction, pointing out some insignificant flaw in the other person. How about you - are you a bona fide member of the Critics' Club? Difficult as it may be to resist setting some other person straight, it's almost impossible not to pass judgment on members of your own family. After all, we have some claim on them, haven't we? Don't we have the right to correct our own offspring or spouse? Who cares if they end up feeling smaller as a result; haven't we done them a service in the long run?
Chuck Swindoll recalls seeing a dominant, aggressive cartoon character philosophizing alongside his friend, who happens to be quieter and more passive. With unhesitating boldness, the stronger one says to the weaker one, "If I were in charge of the world, I would change everything!" A bit intimidated, the friend who is forced to listen says rather meekly, "Uh, that wouldn't be easy. Like...where would you start?" Without hesitation he looks directly back and says, "I would start with you!"
Ah - that's it. If only everybody else would change. They're the ones with the problem, aren't they? Or are we being a tad unrealistic here?
The good news of Jesus is that when we trust in what He's done for us, we're accepted and welcomed by God, all our sins are forgiven and swept away - even our criticalness. With the Holy Spirit's help we are freed from judgmentalism, and receive grace to accept others as Christ has accepted us. Criticism need no longer always be at the tip of our tongue. Instead we can have compassion and understanding, and build others up as Jesus does.
"Disputable Matters" Abound
A recent edition of ChristianWeek offers several examples of Christians being critical of others on what Paul might call "Disputable Matters". In one instance, prominent Christian leaders are urging a boycott of the International Bible Society's "gender-accurate" Today's New International Version. Big names like Pat Robertson, Jack Hayford, Chuck Colson, James Dobson, and Bruce Wilkinson are among the 100 leaders who contend the TNIV is not "sufficiently trustworthy to commend to the church. On the other side, leaders like Jim Cymbala, John Stott, and Philip Yancey endorse the new version, which replaces masculine terms where they are used generically with words such as "people" instead of "man". Oh well, they have a few more years to hash it out before the new version's published in 2005.
In early May, an exhibition of Christian art was supposed to open at Tyndale College in Toronto (formerly Ontario Bible College). Three acclaimed jurors selected 61 paintings from more than 500 entries submitted from across Canada. But this year 5 of the 61 finalists depicted nude images. Days before the opening, Tyndale withdrew support, saying the unclothed paintings would be "too offensive to a number of people". This left organizers scrambling; the Institute for Christian Studies offered to host the exhibition instead. When the public judging was over, first prize went to one of the controversial pieces, which shows the woman "Babylon" from Rev.18 crouching in despair, utterly devastated. Is it art? Is Michelangelo's statue of "David" art?
There are many different denominations, often because people couldn't agree on doctrine and became critical of those who disagreed. Messianic Jews are Christians but still give much heed to Jewish dietary laws and festivals. Seventh - Day Adventists believe in Jesus but worship on Saturday instead of Sunday, and have scruples about what kinds of food they eat. Churches have a variety of views on how to worship (sitting standing or kneeling), what kinds of music to sing (do you want an organ or drums?), gender roles and the right way to celebrate the sacraments (sprinklers or submergers). These things are easy to talk about until we hit an issue that's close to home!
The first century church had its share of disputable matters, just like its 21st century counterpart. In Romans 14 Paul refers to a couple of matters that were controversial, "disputable" as he puts it in verse 1 (unlike basic issues of morality that were more clear-cut based on our Lord's example and interpretation of the major commands in the Old Testament). Verse 2 refers to the vegetarians as opposed to those who eat everything. Back in those days, offering meat to idols was integrated with the social and commercial world of the day. A pagan would symbolically offer part of the meat of an animal at an idol's temple, then consume the rest at home, or sell the leftovers to a butcher. Sometimes there were free-food feasts offered for the poor in the vicinity of the temple. So if you were a poor Christian, here was a free meal available at the soup kitchen: but should you eat the meat which may have been dedicated to an idol? If your pagan friend invited you over to his house for a feast, should you eat the food set before you, which may have been previously offered to an idol? Jewish Christians felt it was wrong to eat un-kosher meat that was forbidden by the law of Moses. Perhaps some Christians agreed with the Jewish sect of the Essenes that the regenerate should eat only vegetables, as in the Garden of Eden.
Or there was the matter of the calendar. Sunday was a work day in the Roman calendar; it didn't become a holiday until the time of Constantine. Those used to the Jewish synagogue practice probably felt a need to gather on Saturday. And then there were special days in the Jewish calendar, which some believers probably observed by fasting. Verse 5 remarks, "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike." 'Is it permissible to cut hay on Sunday? (or do the washing?)' might be the modern version of this. What about going out for a meal to give Mom a break? Makes it a day of rest for her, but aren't you forcing others to work then? we always wondered. Does it make you a better Christian if you can drive on by the restaurant or donut shop rather than stopping in? If we resist that temptation, can we also resist the temptation to take part in a little character assassination of those who "opt in" to Tim's? What guidance does the apostle offer on these matters of varying opinions?
Christians Belong to the Lord: Accepted, Answer
At the root is a question of ownership. Recently we were able to purchase privately a used International Harvester "Cadet" riding lawn mower. It's so old it's getting a little battered up, but it still does the job. Now suppose one day it breaks down. Imagine me going down to Huron Tractor and demanding to complain to the management about what a piece of junk this Cadet is. Would they have much time for me? "You're barking up the wrong tree, mister.We sell John Deere here.If you want to complain, better go see the International dealer! They're the folks who made your equipment!" So, the name that's on the rig determines who's responsible. I'd have no right or reason to complain to the John Deere dealership; my beef'd be with the other manufacturer. As regards accountability, it comes down to origin and ownership.
Back when I became a Christian, I gave up any right to myself. Jesus paid the price for my sins; but in order to receive His offer of eternal life, I needed to lay down all other claims, I turned over responsibility for my life completely to God. Paul writes in verse 9, "Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living." The brand name on my life became not International or John Deere but Jesus Christ: I belong to Him, I'm a new creation in Him. If we call ourselves Christians, we belong to Him, we're His own. Titus 2(14) puts it this way: Jesus "gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good." We belong to the Lord, we "are the Lord's" as Paul says in verse 8 of this chapter. We are not our own, we were bought with a price (1 Cor.6:19f).
It was at the cost of His own life that Jesus made us acceptable to an absolutely good and holy God. This is the acceptance, the welcome that verse 3 speaks of: "God has accepted him." And because we are now the Lord's property, under new ownership, accepted and welcomed by the Father, our accountability is definitely heavenward. Verse 10: "We will all stand before the judgment seat of God"; verse 12, "each of us will give an account of himself to God." Just as Huron Tractor isn't responsible for a Cadet mower their company didn't make, so our lines of accountability are to no one other than Christ: we're His work, His product. If we have a problem, he's the one to turn to; He's the only one we'll have to report to in the end.
The Bible is very definite and consistent on this point of accountability. Jesus said He has been given authority to judge by the Father; all judgment is entrusted to the Son (Jn.5:22,27). He warned, "But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken." (Mt.12:36) Peter said we will have to "give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead". (1 Peter 4:5) James didn't pull punches when he wrote, "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you— who are you to judge your neighbor?" (James 4:12) Paul pointed out that we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due them for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. (2 Corinthians 5:10) In other words, "The buck stops here!"
Poet Friedrich Von Logau said, "Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly small." Longfellow elaborated and said, "Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly small. Though with patience He stands waiting, with exactness He grinds all."
The wonderful corollary of this ownership and accountability is that we are freed from having to finally answer to anyone else! Whoever else might like to pass judgment on us, in the end it's only the Lord's opinion of us that really matters. He alone has total rights over us, exclusive claim to approve or disapprove. And He has already accepted and welcomed us in Christ! Faith eliminates fear -- in Christ, we are already saved from hell and condemnation. We have "already passed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24). And nothing anybody under heaven can say or do is going to change that! Deep down, in the final analysis, the Lord alone is the only One we need be concerned about pleasing. That's so reassuring!
Therefore We've No Right to Pass Judgment
So, with this matter of ownership and belonging identified, Paul can demand rhetorically in verse 4: "Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand." I have no right, no business complaining to the John Deere people if my International Cadet kicks the bucket, mechanically speaking. And we have no business, no right passing judgment or condemning another Christian: they belong to Jesus, I didn't die to buy them for myself. God has already accepted them: who am I to start slandering them? That's the Accuser's job. I don't want to be a partner with Satan. So Paul says in verse 1, "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters." In the next chapter he puts it this way, "Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God." (Romans 15:7) And in 14:13 he concludes, "Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way."
a) Don't cause brother/sister to stumble
Don't cut them up and have them for breakfast...BUILD them up, just as Jesus helped whomever He met. Especially us. Repeatedly He urged the disciples not to look down on others or minimize them in any way. He said in Matthew 18(10), "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven." Even more sternly, He warned in Luke 17(2) that it would be better for a person to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than for them to cause "one of these little ones" to sin. The Sermon on the Mount states, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." (Matthew 7:1) [That's on an individual level; there's still a place for church or parental discipline, as in Mt.18.] Paul even says that if we exercise our freedom to the extent that a weaker brother's conscience is wounded, we sin against Christ (1Cor.8:12): He identifies so much with all who are His, including those who struggle in the faith. Build up others by your words and actions, don't tear them down; that would put you in a tug-of-war with the Christ's purpose in their life. Verses 19-20 show that the main concern is whether our actions are helping the other person, or hindering them. "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble." (Romans 14:19-20)
In his book "Grace Awakening", Chuck Swindoll writes, "Accepting others is basic to letting them be. Those who didn't eat [meat] (called here "weak in the faith") were exhorted to accept and not judge those who ate. And those who ate were exhorted to accept and not regard with contempt those who did not eat. The secret lies in accepting one another. All of this is fairly easy to read so long as I stay on the issue of eating meat. That one is safe because it isn't a current taboo. It's easy to accept those folks today because they don't exist!
(He continues) "How about those in our life who may disagree with us on issues that are taboos in evangelical Christian circles today? ...Going to movies...Playing cards...Not having a "quiet time" every morning...Going to a restaurant that sells liquor...Listening to certain music...Dancing...Drinking coffee... There are a dozen other things I could list, some of which would make you smile. But believe me, in various areas of our country or the world some or all of these things may be taboo...Don't assume that all areas are identical when it comes to taboos...(Remember, our goal is acceptance, the basis of a grace state of mind.)"
b) Be fully convinced in your own mind, honouring God
Along with buttoning our tongue toward others, we need to be prayerfully convinced of God's direction for our own behaviour. Verse 5: "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." Settle it on your knees before God, informed by His word, sensitive to His Holy Spirit's guidance. God is the One, after all, to whom you'll be giving answer ultimately. Paul goes on to emphasize that those who regard a day as special do it "to the Lord"; the person who eats meat "eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God." (verse 6) We "live to the Lord" and "die to the Lord" (v.8) -- there's a "to the Lord-ness" in all our being, living, honouring, thanking.
Personally, Paul was convinced that "everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving" (1 Timothy 4:3-4), which fits in with Jesus' teaching in Mk.7 that particular foods don't make us clean or unclean. That was an incredibly radical concept for an orthodox Jewish person of the day. In Acts 10(9-19), God showed Peter the vision of the sheet three times just to be sure Peter'd get the message! This freedom made it possible for Saul to become Paul, and effectively take the message to Gentiles. Yet for Paul the exciting thing was not liberation from centuries-old dietary laws, but the Kingdom of God, which he defines as "not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom.15:17). An intimate faith-relationship with one's dear heavenly Father. When your heart's in the right place and your conscience is clear, details about eating and restaurants and how to use your time will fall into place, for you're concerned foremost with pleasing a living Lord instead of keeping a bunch of rules out of fear for what other people will think.
Stop Sniping: Get Your Hands Dirty in the Trenches
Our own denominational District Superintendent has quoted a medieval churchman who had this advice: "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in everything, love." As Christians the most important law we observe is the law of love, which does no wrong to one's neighbour but seeks to build them up...even if (in Jesus' case) it raises eyebrows by not objecting to others eating with unwashed hands, or hanging around with tax collectors and other people of questionable reputation. Put God's love into action, even if you risk stretching some boundaries. Please and honour the Lord, and let the chips fall where they may - while taking care not to wound someone who is weaker in faith. The details will all come out in the wash at judgment; they're not for bystanders to evaluate.
So let's with God's help abandon the Critics' Club, and instead pitch in alongside the Lord, daring to get our hands dirty and be ridiculed if it's the Spirit's way of expressing love and Kingdom power to those who are longing for divine help. Theodore Roosevelt (of "teddy bear" fame) said in 1910: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually try to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
C Everett Koop, Surgeon General of the United States during the 1980s, was a committed Christian with strong moral values who brought his influence to bear upon a high national post. He lashed out against drunk drivers, convened task forces on child abuse and spouse abuse, criticized American eating habits, urged the creation of smoke-free workplaces, and even called for a smokeless society. Almost 20 million Americans quit smoking during his term. He was adamantly pro-life and against homosexual behaviour. Though to the public at large he became a folk hero, fellow evangelicals criticized him as betraying the cause. One conservative said, "I think the guy's a disgrace...He sold out to the very principles that made him Surgeon General." Another critic moaned, "If he couldn't act on what he believed to be correct, he should have resigned. He has revealed himself to be a man who prized the public spotlight rather than his conscience." Commentator Cal Thomas said in dismay, "Longtime supporters of Dr.Koop are bitter and depressed...an atheist would have performed just as effectively for the left." Having heard that, Koop told Philip Yancey, "That kind of criticism affects me in a strange way. I don't like to go to church anymore -- after all, Cal happens to go to the same church as I do."
Why were the evangelicals so critical of a Christian in high office? It's not that Koop didn't try. In the Baby Doe controversy, a doctor and family agreed to withhold nourishment from a birth-defective child, who died within a week. This seemed infanticide to Koop, who had himself performed 475 operations to correct precisely the same problem on other babies. But Koop's stiff regulations to prevent future occurrences were overturned in court. He then met with both sides (the medical establishment vigorously opposed the regulations) and came up with a compromise based on "patient-care review committees" within local hospitals. As it turned out, the Supreme Court struck down that agreement as well. Koop learned that Christian absolutes cannot always be imposed on those who do not share Christian beliefs.
But the process of compromise had opened a crack between the surgeon general and doctrinaire pro-lifers, who viewed Koop's acceptance of the review committees as caving in to the medical establishment. Koop couldn't understand the all-or-nothing mentality of the pro-lifers. He observed: "Historically it is true that if the pro-life movement had sat down in, say, 1970 or 1972 with the pro-choice people, we might have ended up with an agreement on abortion for the life of the mother, defective child, rape and incest, and nothing more. That would have saved 97% of the abortions since then. 97% of 25 million is a lot of babies."
On the AIDS issue, Koop proved that it was indeed possible to separate the sin from the sinner, to oppose the one and embrace the other. The homosexual community learned to trust him when he said he was surgeon general of all the people, even those whose lifestyle he opposed. He won them over by calling for compassion for the sick among them, and for volunteers to care for them. But he was roundly criticized by those in the political and religious right. They boycotted a Washington dinner scheduled in his honour, claiming his report represented the homosexuals' views, not those of the pro-family movement.
Despite the opposition, Koop persisted to function with Christian integrity. Yancey sums it up: "He learned compassion and mercy for the downtrodden, and love for the enemy. The world took notice." An article in Mademoiselle magazine praised him for his example of intellectual, moral, and ethical honesty, concluding, "Koop, by exercising an agonized compassion for the poor, the wounded and the disenfranchised, has successfully and spectacularly integrated his religious and professional life: He is Christian, but he is not sectarian."
So let's give up sniping from the treetops, and under the Spirit's guidance get busy in the trenches, lifting up the fallen. Christ has accepted us and died for us. Now we can live to Him, help others instead of hindering them, and so observe every day "in honour of the Lord." Let's pray.