On Judgment vs. Discernment and Sin vs. Crime

Today I visited a blog I hadn't visited before, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, written by Margaret Romao Toigo. She had an interesting post called Traditional Judeo-Christian Morality. I left comments there, but I wanted to post my thoughts here, too.

Margaret makes an argument that is perhaps often made, however, she says it better than most. I don't know if she considers herself to be a Christian or not, but she quotes Matthew 7:1-5 (Judge not, that ye be not judged, etc.) and uses it to criticize the approach of the "Christian Right," toward politics.

The so called “Christian Right” (may God have mercy upon their poor lost and tormented souls), who appear to be so proud that they believe their own wrath to be virtuous, have been confusing truth with doctrine to the point where they must now engage in the practice of intellectual dishonesty in order to justify the continued politicization of their faith for the purpose of promoting its dogma as the one and only truth. But this dynamic is not exclusive to religious fundamentalists as some secularists also appear to have a difficult time distinguishing ethics from morals.

Although I agree with her that hateful rhetoric on either side is not proper, I differ with many of the conclusions she draws from these verses and comment on them below.  It would probably make more sense to go read her post before continuing with mine.

First, I don't think that it is accurate to say that the "basic Judeo-Christian ethic upon which our country was founded," can be summarized by this one (or any one) passage of Scripture. There is a whole, complex understanding of the roles of God, the Church, the civil government, the family, and the individual which can be derived from the Scriptures (both Old and New Testament, but mostly OT). It is this whole system of government(s) that I believe the founders applied to the establishment of our government, even though some of them agreed to it because they considered the Scriptures authoritative, and others agreed to it because they felt it was the system that Natural Law also revealed.

There are many aspects of this overall system, such as the people calling their leaders in church and state based on their qualifications and holding them accountable, rule by councils of leaders rather than vesting overall power in individuals, etc., but in regards to Margaret's post, I want to comment on a distinction between judgment and discernment, and also between crimes and sins.

All people are called upon to discern. Only those with authority are called upon to judge, and then only within the defined bounds of that authority. Individuals, for example are warned in Proverbs 20:19 against getting involved with talebearers and flatterers. How can this be done without discerning who qualifies as a talebearer or flatterer?

The verse you quoted is addressed to individuals and warns them not to judge, but not to not discern. Judging is what the gossip and the talebearer, and those who listen to them, do. They listen to gossip, and in an unjust way, weigh that evidence and pronounce a judgment on that person. Calling someone damned or lost is judging. Saying one ought to avoid dealings with this person, or not call him or her as a leader because of his or her character or morals flaws is discernment.

That being said, however, judgment is within the authority and responsibility of the Church and the state governments. The church is to judge its people (voluntarily bound to the church by vows or covenant) for sin, and the state is to judge all people within its borders for crimes. In so doing, these church and state officers are given the authority to call for and examine evidence, place witnesses under oath and compel testimony, etc. These are powers that seek to assure that the judgment will be as just as is humanly possible. The judgment of an individual could never hope to be just, because these powers are lacking.

The difference between judging and discerning is that judgment carries with it an official declaration of someone's state as either (in the case of sin), lost or in rebellion against God vs. saved or blessed, or (in the case of crimes) either a criminal or not a criminal. Also the authority to judge also bears with it the authority to sentence. The church can excommunicate (or declare them to be outside of Israel in the OT,) and deny the sacraments, and the state can execute, require restitution, etc., as appropriate. These judgments were considered binding because of the God-given authority of the church or state.

So someone is in the church if the church says they are and someone is a criminal if the state says they are. Both types of judgment are subject to human error. No individual, (that is, not vested with official authority) as the verses she quoted say well, could ever be qualified to judge as an individual unless he or she was without sin. (First take the log out of your own eye...) Only one person ever qualified on that score, and He is the judge of all, under whom all human judges serve.

In medieval Europe this distinction between church and state had become blurred. The officials of the states were ruling state churches, appointing church leaders, and compelling people to worship there and/or not worship elsewhere. All this was counter to the Biblical system and it was one of the main political issues of the Reformation.

This is the problem the Establishment Clause was addressing. Our government was clearly and precisely prohibited from taking any powers of the church, including regulating worship, judging sin, etc.

However, this does not mean that the state does not have the authority to judge crimes, or that that judgment cannot be based upon a Biblical definition of those crimes. For example, the Scriptures define the degrees of manslaying our system of laws uses: premeditated murder, unpremeditated murder, and manslaughter. And these are definitions of crimes, not definitions of sins. The definition of murder as a sin is much broader, and even includes hateful thoughts, though the state is not given the authority to judge those kinds of lesser cases.

Margaret speaks of a free will. If she means that in the sense of a freedom of conscience, (as opposed to the theological understanding of those words), I heartily agree. This concept, too, is entirely Biblical. Biblical government (both church and state) is very limited on what areas it can judge. For example, coveting is a sin, but no church or state authority is ever seen in Scripture to have the authority to find someone guilty of it. That is a matter of individual conscience and God will ultimately judge. Also, the American founders recognized that different churches had come to differing conclusions on issues of worship, however, they chose not to interfere with them, but to allow individuals to decide which church, if any, they would bind themselves to, and leave it to the church authorities to judge those things.

However, just because the conscience is left free to discern in some areas, does not mean it is free to discern in all areas. We are not free to murder or rape, for example. I think most people would agree on that whether they are coming to that from a Scriptural basis or not.

So when Christians say rape is wrong and a crime, and cite a Scripture to support that assertion, most people wouldn't object, because they agree with the conclusion, if not the source. However, when someone says unborn life has legal standing and quotes Scripture for that, suddenly the Christian is said to be foisting his or her morality on someone else or blurring the line between Church and State. Because one disagrees with the conclusion, one attacks the source, rather than admit that in both cases the Christian relied on an authoritative source outside of him- or herself, and the non-Christian relied on his or her own self-defined source. Somehow, the person with the Biblically-informed opinion is to be considered less than the person with the self-informed opinion. Yet both are opinions, aren't they?

But I think people who do not view the Bible as authoritative fear large groups of people who do, because they see the Bible as conflicting with their way of life. Likewise, those who see the Scriptures as authoritative fear what will happen when they see large groups of people who do not share that conviction, because they fear that rights their Creator has endowed may not continue to be protected by a godless state. There is a mutual mistrust or fear, and if we are not careful, that mistrust can become bitterness and hatred, neither of which is helpful in solving the issues we need to settle in order to live with one another. (I believe that happens on both sides.)

Let me criticize my own. Christians sometimes err by attempting to legislate, in both the church and the state, where God gives freedom of conscience. One historical example comes to mind from our country's prohibition days. The move to prohibit alcohol was driven by Christian groups. However, though the Scriptures prohibit drunkenness, they do not prohibit alcohol altogether. The law violated the liberty of conscience we spoke of before, and Christians, in my opinion, would have been wise to reject the legislation on that basis.

As Christians in the marketplace of ideas, we do expect our voices to be heard, and our standing in politics and in the courts to be equal to those who claim to be nonreligious. Yet, reading criticisms such as Margaret's ought to also remind us that we must communicate fairly and without bitterness, even as we hold to the absolute truths that God declares in His Word, and we ought to guard ourselves against attempting to bind anyone where the Scriptures leave us free.

Comments

[Catez]

I appreciated this - you demarcate the different authorities well. Thanks.

[JD Wetterling]

Amen.

[Jen]

Excellent post, Dory. You state the truth very well, and the reasons behind the truth.

Thanks for expounding with such clarity.

Jen

[Margaret Romao Toigo]

I have posted a detailed response to this article on my site.

I am in complete agreement with the substance of your article and I believe that our apparent differences with regard to this issue are simply a matter of style.