God's Not Dead 2014 - the movie....

You give a person unconditional love and they blossom...

Post by I Like Giving.

How to Live Forever - video

God's Mighty Acts in a Changing World

Part one

The Seventh-day Adventist Church faces some problems in evangelism and church growth. 

Take the example of SDA church in Great Britain. In spite of a major increase in immigration over the last twenty years, 95% of the British population remains English-speaking whites. Of the 20,000 Adventists in that country, about 10% reflect this majority; 85% come from West Indian immigrants, who constitute only 2% of the general population; and the rest from other ethnic groups. Of the 8,000 Adventist members in London, only about 200 are whites, mostly immigrants from Easter Europe. Most members felt that these statistics indicate a racial problem: blacks are naturally open to the gospel and whites are naturally closed.

New York City example and extensive research on Western Christianity suggest a different explanation. In North America the divide of spiritual interest is not between whites and blacks but between indigenous and immigrant. Recent immigrants from Eastern Europe have been wide open to the Adventist message, as my German forebears had once been. But second and third generation German-Americans are not being reached. Large numbers of blacks from places like Haiti, Jamaica, and Trinidad are baptized every year in New York City, yet that seems not to be the case with African-Americans.

Likewise, church growth among immigrant Hispanics continues, yet we rarely baptize large numbers from third or fourth generation Hispanics. And in the Asian community, massive defections are common among second and third generation Korean-Americans. This leads me to the conclusion that the real evangelistic challenge faced by the Adventist Church in the Western world is not how to reach whites, but how to reach the mainstream cultures of North America, Europe, Australia, and other developed countries. When it comes to evangelism, we do not face a racial problem but an indigenous problem.

During a workshop with the largely West Indian audience of Adventist pastors in South England, one pastor remarked: “Why are we wasting time talking about hard–to–reach people? We don’t have time for this. Let’s invest our time and money on people groups that are open. If the majority culture isn’t open to the gospel, it’s not our problem.”

Response, “Do you care if your children and grandchildren stay in the church? My experience as a second-generation German-American tells me that your children and grandchildren will be indigenous Brits; they won’t be West Indians anymore. If the church doesn’t learn how to reach indigenous British, it won’t interest your children and grandchildren either.”

A white pastor spoke up: “There’s something here I don’t understand. When the Adventist Church first came to Britain (toward the end of the 19th century), we reached the British mainstream. If that wasn’t so, we wouldn’t have any Anglos in the church at all right now. What has changed between then and now?”

This question should connect a whole lot of things in our mind. Recent study and research on the philosophic changes that have affected Western thought, giving way to what is now known as postmodernism, suddenly made sense concerning the lack of response to gospel outreach on the part of the indigenous populations of the Western world. This material is relevant to the situation in North America and in other western countries where the concept of truth and reality has undergone tremendous changes. These changes need not frighten us, but with patience and understanding we can see God at work through such changes for new ways of witness and outreach.

This material will provide a brief historical survey of the religious thought and discuss the main contours of postmodernism, and how we can shape our response to postmodern challenges, keeping in view that God is in ultimate control.

A short history of religious thought

At the risk of superficiality, we begin with a short history of religious thought. The following question will guide that history: How do people determine truth? How do they decide what is true and what is not?

The premodern period. In the Middle Ages (the premodern period), truth was thought to reside in privileged groups. The average person didn’t think he or she had a clue. Truth could be found only in the clergy or in the Church. If you wanted to know the truth, you needed to talk to a priest. Whenever the priests would disagree, truth would be decided by the head of the Church or an action of one of the great councils.

Christian modernism. During the Reformation, people’s confidence in privileged people and groups began to break down. Truth was seen to reside no longer in the Church or the state but in logical statements based on careful biblical research. Priests, popes, and nobles had no greater access to truth than anyone else. Anyone with diligence and talent could understand the truth through careful study of the Scriptures.

The worldview of Christian modernism dominated nineteenth-century America. It was the milieu in which Adventism got its start and found its logical appeal to the American mainstream. It was the milieu in which early Adventist missionaries found a ready audience in Great Britain as well. And anywhere in the world where Christian modernism still dominates, Adventism still reaches the mainstream with power. But those areas are shrinking rapidly. The spearhead of philosophical change has already moved two generations past nineteenth-century America. The changes have been wrenching and massive.

Secular modernism. With the Enlightenment the world experienced a shift from Christian modernism to secular modernism. While intellectual circles were already making this move in the eighteenth century, secular modernism became the dominant worldview in North America sometime in the early decades of the twentieth century. The Fundamentalist-Liberal controversy of the 1920s could be seen as a rite of passage, in which conservative Christianity lost touch with the mainstream.

Beginning with Descartes (1596– 1650), the father of modern philosophy, secular modernists came to believe that the key to truth was not careful Bible study but methodological doubt. The goal was to eliminate superstition of all kinds by exposing the flaws in all previous thinking. This would be done by applying careful, scientific methods to all questions, including religious questions. So secular modernists believe that truth cannot be found in the church or the Bible, it is found in a scientific process of careful observation and experimentation.

The goal of secular modernism was a “bomb-proof” minimum of truth in which one could have absolute confidence. With continued application of scientific method, these “assured results” could be gradually increased until life could be lived with a fair amount of confidence that we knew what was really going on. Science would provide the “truth,” and technology would provide the power to change the world. Education would spread this new “gospel,” and the result would eventually be a paradise of affluence and security.

But reality got in the way of this dream. A hundred years ago the concept of relativity and the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics began to paint a very different picture of the universe. The twentieth century also shattered the dream of a technological paradise. Scientific progress seemed to go hand in hand with an increase in pollution and crime. World War I, World War II, the Holocaust and other genocides, weapons of mass destruction, and terrorism combined to wring the confidence out of scientific modernists. A new generation proclaims the god of secular modernism to be a false god. Humanity today turns away from the truth of science to look for truth in other directions.

Secular postmodernism. In the United States, beginning with Generation X (born 1964–1980), an increasingly pervasive worldview distrusts the scientific approach to truth. In postmodernism, truth is not primarily found in science, the Bible, or the church. It is found in relationships and the telling of stories. Truth has become rather elusive. Instead of Truth (with a capital “T”), the postmodern prefers to think of “many truths,” a “variety of truths,” or “truth for me.” Feeling that no one has a clear grasp on truth but that everyone has a part of the picture results in small bits of expertise floating around in a vast array of ignorance.

The building of community, therefore, is a key component of the postmodern search for truth. As we each share that part of truth that we are “expert” on, everyone benefits. In the postmodern environment, building community becomes more important than the ideas that once held communities together.

At first blush the basic “truth” of postmodernism seems a self-evident truth.

Only an egotist would claim to have a handle on all truth. Human beings have long recognized that “in the multitude of counselors there is safety,” and that we all have a lot to learn. But something more than this is going on here.

Generally accepting and inclusive, postmodernism is quite exclusive in three areas:

1. It rejects meta-narrative, the big stories that try to explain everything, like the great controversy - feeling that meta-narratives try to explain too much and therefore promote an exclusivism that leads to violence. It is, after all, faith in a meta-narrative that fuels the terrifying actions of an al Qaeda or the medieval papacy.

2. Postmodernism rejects truth as an institution (church), particularly when that institution thinks of itself as unique or better than others (the true church?). Thus the Adventist idea of a “remnant church” is problematic in a postmodern environment.

3. Postmodernism also tends to reject truth as Bible considering the Bible to be filled with violence, everlasting burning hell, and the subjection of women and minorities. While most of these charges are somewhat misplaced, they can be a significant barrier to casual exploration of the Scriptures.

The hand of God in postmodernism. As we contemplate these trends, we find it easy to question whether the hand of God could possibly be seen in postmodernism. Is postmodernism an act of the devil, or something that God could use? Is it, perhaps, even a necessary steppingstone to where God wants the human race to go?

As a Seventh-day Adventist nurtured in the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, I cannot fathom an environment that leaves God “without witness” (Acts 14:17). Convinced that God’s hand is behind these changes and that we are heading to the place of His choosing, I have found eight reasons to believe that postmodernism is an act of God in the positive sense.

1. A sense of brokenness. Postmoderns definitely don’t share the self-confidence of secular moderns. They are much more likely than their grandparents to think of themselves as broken people. They often come from broken families. When they share home stories with their friends, they discover that things aren’t any better with them. Postmoderns, as a result, have a keen sense of brokenness, a deep need for inner healing. While brokenness can lead to despair, it also can open the way to the refreshing winds of the gospel.

2. Humility and authenticity. Living in an age where image is king, postmodern individuals place a high premium on humility, honesty, and authenticity in interpersonal relationships. It is considered better to be honest about one’s weaknesses and handicaps than to craft an image. This principle is closely related to the previous one. Postmoderns are willing to share that sense honestly with friends they consider safe.

Humility and authenticity are, of course, at the root of Christian faith. Confession is nothing else than telling the truth about oneself. In modernism, humility was thought demeaning to human value; people were humble only if they had plenty to be humble about! Postmodernism, on the other hand, sees genuineness as a higher value. God is bringing the culture to the place where it values one of the great testing truths of the Christian tradition (John 3:19, 20).

3. The search for identity and purpose. Postmoderns long for a clear sense of personal identity, yet question whether they could ever attain it for themselves. In their experience, the identity claims of others often prove to be flawed or selfconstructed. With few or no role models, postmoderns tend toward identity crisis. They may try on several “identities” yet end up with no clue which identity is really theirs.

This is an opening for the kind of positive identity that can come from knowing that one has been bought with a price. A well-rounded Christian faith helps people know why they are here, where they have come from, and where they are going. Postmoderns need their lives to have a sense of mission and purpose, a sense that their lives make a difference in the world. Scripture encourages the idea that each person is the object of God’s purpose (Jer. 1:5).

4. Need for community. Postmoderns have a strong need for community. I have been amazed to watch this younger generation handle relationships. Unlike my generation, they seem much less likely to pair off. They tend to go out in groups of five (say two girls and three guys) or seven (say five girls and two guys), always with their friends, yet somewhat afraid to go deep.

Community (koinonia) remains foundational to New Testament faith. If Christian communities can learn to experience and express the kind of community the New Testament proclaims, they would find postmoderns quite interested in what they have to offer. Once again, the hand of God seems to be moving the mainstream a bit closer to the biblical ideal.

5. Inclusiveness. There exists a refreshing inclusiveness in the postmodern attitude toward others. When I was doing my doctorate, the intellectual atmosphere of scholarly societies seemed much more controlled than it is now. One could only read papers and make meaningful comments in relation to the fairly rigid agenda of modernistic historical criticism. Since that time scholarship has been much more open to a variety of perspectives, including Adventist ones. The inclusiveness of postmodernism has opened the way for Adventist exegetes and theologians to share the kinds of insights that have benefited us for a century and a half.

6. Spirituality. The younger generation tends to be more spiritual than its predecessor. Even among actors, athletes, and scholars, people are becoming more open about their own personal faith and practice. While there is a strong suspicion toward traditional institutions and the Bible, postmoderns are open to spiritual discussions with anyone who knows God and can teach others how to know God.

7. Toleration of opposites. One of the fascinating characteristics of postmodernism centers on its ability to tolerate opposites. Philosophically, the Greeks saw the opposite of a truth to be false. Scientific modernism was grounded in Greek Western logic. But Hebrew logic could often see contrasting ideas not in terms of true and false but in terms of a tension between two poles. So the postmodern ability to tolerate opposites is closer to the biblical worldview than the sharp distinctions of scientific modernism. This means that postmoderns may have an easier time understanding the Bible than did previous generations.

8. Truth as story. For postmoderns truth is found not in church, Bible (as traditionally understood), or science but in community and in story. The concept of truth as story provides a powerful corrective to traditional use of the Bible. Many are frustrated that the Bible was not written as a systematic theology. You would think God would have been a little more logical about this truth business. But since I cannot outline exactly what God thought when He caused the Bible to be put together the way it was, I can only assume that the result is exactly what He wanted. If God chose the Bible to be a collection of stories, then postmodernism might be our best chance to fully explore the implications of those stories for the character and purposes of God.

I realize that some sociologists question whether such a thing as a postmodern worldview exists. Perhaps it is better to speak of a “postmodern condition.” There are definitely changes afoot, even though we do not know where those changes are taking us. But one thing is clear to me: God’s hand is not weaker than before. His mighty acts are present in even the most challenging of circumstances.

Part two

The shift to postmodern thinking naturally affects the way people approach faith and their relationship to faith-based institutions. The Seventh-day Adventist Church will certainly not be able to continue with business as usual in a postmodern world. Jesus gives a glimpse of the Adventist dilemma in Matthew 5:13–16. There He articulates two types of Christian community: One is based on the model of a city/fortress; the other is based on salt.

In the FORTRESS model of evangelism, the saints are safely enclosed in protective walls with strong gates. They avoid undue influence from “the world” and safeguard the integrity of the community. From time to time, however, the citizens of the fortress will hold a “crusade” by opening the gates, sending out the army, and snatching up a few captives! The captives are brought back to the fortress, the gates are slammed shut, and all is well in Fortressland. But we live in a world where the captives are becoming fewer and the casualties larger as a result of this approach.

In the SALT model of evangelism, on the other hand, the salt mingles with the food and melts in to the point where one can hardly tell what is salt and what is food anymore. But the result of this process is that the entire dish tastes better. With the salt motif as an incarnational model, the saints go out into the world and make it a better place by their presence.

I am not suggesting that the church discard the fortress model of evangelism. The fortress model worked extremely well in the age of Christian modernism and continues to work well in areas where a large number of Christian modernists can be found, including immigrant cultures in North America, Europe, and Australia. But the increasing impact of postmodernism on the mainstream cultures of the world can be better met by the incarnational model of outreach.

The salt model points the way to a work for postmoderns that will engage the church and society in a productive interaction and has the potential to rekindle the fires of outreach that have gone cold in the mainstream cultures of the West. As I ponder the salt model in the light of the emerging postmodern condition, I see nine changes to traditional Adventist outreach that may be necessary if we wish to participate in the mighty acts of God in the face of the challenges of postmodernism.

1. From public to relational evangelism. Traditional Adventist outreach uses public meetings as the crucial factor in spiritual “regime change.” But postmoderns are not usually comfortable in that kind of a setting. They are not likely to come to the typical Adventist evangelistic series, nor are they likely to be moved by it if they do come. Experience teaches that postmoderns are best reached one on one, through friendships and mentoring relationships. One-on-one relationships allow people to explore unfamiliar ideas at their own pace in a safe environment.

Unquestionably supported by Scripture, such a shift in strategy describes mentoring and discipleship at the heart of the Great Commission proclaimed by Jesus (Matthew 28:19, 20). With only one main verb in Matthew 28:19-20, that particular verb does not express a command to hold public meetings. Instead it is a command to “make disciples.” While meetings can be an aid to mentoring relationships, the relationships themselves are the primary evangelistic strategy presented by Jesus in this passage.

2. From short-term to long-term. Recent Adventist evangelism is a short-term project. A local church invests in public meetings,tries to move people to baptism in several weeks, and then breathes a sigh of relief for the next year or two. And this strategy can reach people when they are at a point of transition, as is the case with most immigrants. But a clear lesson learned from the New York Project, attempted in the aftermath of September 11, is that mainstream Americans do not join the Adventist Church in a matter of four to six months. It takes a long-term investment (at least three to five years) to make an impact in the mainstream culture.

In the past, we have not shown much patience for this kind of approach. But the model of Jesus’ earthly ministry suggests that patience in evangelism should be the norm rather than the exception. Jesus Himself, the most effective mentor the world has ever known, invested three and a half years in just twelve people and even then suffered a dropout (Judas). We should not expect things to move more rapidly with postmoderns in today’s world.

3. From our agenda to felt needs. Traditional Adventist outreach, based on a clear sense of what outsiders need to learn from us, includes giving it to them the way we think they should hear it, and if they don’t get it, it is “their problem.” Postmoderns, unfortunately, have proven quite disinterested in our traditional agenda for their souls. They don’t feel that the answers we provide address questions that matter to their lives.

A more successful approach involves listening before we talk. Through listening we can discover the felt needs in the mainstream community and meet them in the power of the gospel. Paul articulated such a felt-needs approach in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23. Become all things to all people in order that you might save some.

4. From church-based to neighborhood/workplace-based. In the typical Adventist approach, meetings are held at the church building. Even if they begin in a public hall, they are moved as soon as possible to the church venue. But postmoderns are not likely to come to a church, even if they have an interest in the topics being presented. Waiting for them there is a losing proposition. On the other hand, people live in every neighborhood and work in every workplace with Adventists located in the same neighborhoods and workplaces. To be successful in the Western world, you need to meet people where they are. So a move toward neighborhood and workplace outreach is a step in the right direction.

Paul endorsed this type of approach when he used his skills as a tentmaker to meet the mainstream people of his day. Spending large amounts of time at a tent workshop in the middle of town enabled Paul to meet many people who would never have come to a synagogue. Paul truly met the people where they actually were.

5. From one way to a multiplicity of approaches. The typical Adventist evangelistic approach does not significantly differ from that which was used at the turn of the twentieth century. Though there are variations, the overall approach stays fairly consistent. Those to whom it appeals respond very well, but in the Western world, at least, the percentage of people that find it relevant seems to be declining fairly rapidly.

Postmoderns are as diverse as snowflakes. The beautiful thing is that such diversity can be countered with the kind of variety bequeathed by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12–14). Truly Spirit-filled Christians do not fit into a cookie-cutter mold. They are, in fact, rather unpredictable (John 3:8). The variety of the Spirit’s gifts will lead to a multiplicity of approaches to meet the various mindsets and felt needs of the postmodern seeker.

6. From a conversion to a process focus. Traditional Adventist evangelism focuses on conversion and baptism. Imagine a continuum that goes from –10 to +10. Minus ten designates a person who has absolutely no knowledge of God. Plus ten designates a fully devoted follower of God, with the zero point as the point of conversion and baptism. Traditional evangelism focuses on getting people from minus into plus territory, and success can be measured only when there are baptisms as a result. But mainstream westerners tend to be far deeper into the minus continuum than the typical evangelistic “interest.” This means we have little or no impact in the mainstream community.

Salt evangelism, on the other hand, can occur even with no immediate baptism in view. If a person moves from –8 to –6 on the scale, successful evangelism has occurred. The key to a process focus includes encouraging the people with whom we work to begin or to continue moving in the direction of Jesus. And process evangelism is not limited to reaching secular people. The idea of process is also relevant to the “plus” side of the spectrum, nurturing baptized saints into a more fully devoted discipleship.

The book The Desire of Ages makes it clear that Jesus was dedicated to process evangelism. The best biblical examples of process are found in the way He handled both Judas and Peter. In both cases the journey was fitful and full of digressions and dead ends. Yet Jesus continued to work with both of them and eventually succeeded with Peter. Jesus’ patience with long, slow conversions continues as a good model for working with postmoderns.

7. From church to community. Adventists have grown accustomed to the idea that a community of believers has to have a building to meet in that has the identification of a “church” and looks like a church. But postmoderns do not think of “church” in positive terms. At some point in their experience they have been burned by the church idea. In Britain, among other places, many postmoderns will cross the street rather than walk by a church. The very style of the church building can be a turn-off. So an Adventist community seriously interested in reaching postmoderns will consider new models for community. The models that are being tried include cafes, health centers, gymnasiums, and “house churches.”

This may seem painfully radical to you, and perhaps even heretical J. But you might be shocked to find out that the oldest known church building in the Roman world, usually dated somewhere between A.D. 250–300, is located at Dura-Europus in Syria. So for more than two hundred years the early Christian church flourished without church buildings. Our fixation with such structures today is a legacy of Constantine, a character we don’t normally take as a model of sound New Testament thinking. In New Testament times most churches seem to have met in the largest home available to the members in that area. Thus other forms of community are not contrary to Scripture.

8. From church-controlled to God-controlled. Moving to long-term, relational, and process evangelism—not closely tied to traditional church structures—moves things a little out of our control. The traditional process goes to great pains to track people from first contact through interest to evangelistic series to baptism. Although this procedure is effective with Christian moderns, postmoderns will more likely go through a conversion process difficult to track and to enumerate. The process may include entities not tied to the church or even encounters with other religions.

It will not be easy for us to give up some of our control of the conversion process. We may find it hard to trust that God will use our efforts to His glory even if we never see the final outcome of our labors. The biblical model of control was suggested by Paul when he said, “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase” (1 Cor. 3:5–7). Sometimes we will reap a harvest from the work of others; at other times, others will reap a harvest from ours. Perhaps in this generation the concept of “sheep-stealing” will lose its negative reputation and will be recognized as the norm.

9. From exclusive to inclusive. I have felt for more than a decade that the Seventh-day Adventist Church faces a crisis of identity. On the one hand, we desire a relatively small, focused, doctrinally pure church with consistent standards of lifestyle. On the other hand, we believe that God wants us to go into the whole world and reach out to all kinds of people. But reaching out to all kinds of different people will require flexibility and an inclusiveness that will make the first goal rather difficult to attain.

We face a tension between exclusiveness and inclusiveness, between a focus on pure teaching and the openness of grace. If we concentrate on purity, we will become smaller and more idiosyncratic. At its extreme, such an approach would result in a community more like the Amish than the mainstream culture. But if we concentrate on “becoming all things to all people” (1 Cor. 9:22, 23) we may become a “great multitude” that exhibits a wide variety of worship styles and standards.

It seems to me that we have, as a group, tried to run a route down the middle, thus losing the potential benefits of either approach. Perhaps it is God’s ideal to pursue both sides of this seeming dilemma (and the Hebrew mind often said Yes to such dilemmas). But with God’s hand truly involved in the emerging postmodern condition (and I laid out my case for this conclusion in the previous article), we will need to become more inclusive and open in the way that we deal with others. We may need to give greater attention to the statement of Jesus, “He that is not against us is for us” (Luke 9:50; cf. Mark 9:40).

Conclusion. As hinted already in the previous paragraphs, there are two ways that the Seventh-day Adventist Church can respond to the evident signs that God has a lot to do with the emerging postmodern condition.

On the one hand, we could see in these developments the call of God to move out of our comfort zone and reach postmoderns where they are. This challenges us to approaches that will require significant sacrifice on the part of local congregations and will no doubt engender strife and confusion in some places. But we should not expect to have significant success with postmoderns if we do not make substantial changes.

On the other hand, we could take the approach that God has called us to be a pure, doctrinally focused community whose task is the preservation of truth and the demonstration of high standards. We could trust that God will use other Christian bodies to do the front line work of bringing postmoderns to a basic knowledge of Jesus Christ. We could perhaps trust that one day God will do a miracle, shifting the mainstream cultures of the West to the place where our answers will meet their questions without our having to make significant changes. Perhaps such a strategy will be successful, but history and experience tell me that we will likely be permanently left at the margins of society.

Rather, a growing base of evidence that God continues to do a mighty work in this world exists. I would prefer to be in the center of what God does in the world, not at the edges. 

     ·    So from now on I want to reach out to anyone of any background who wants something better for their life.

·     I want to build bridges to other people and other communities rather than build walls to keep them from disturbing my comfort.

·      I want to heal hearts rather than break them.

·      I want to learn whatever God wants me to learn in order to be more effective wherever in the world He leads me.

And I hope, when all is said and done, that I will have captured just a little of the spirit of Jesus.

(adapted after Jon Paulien)

Jesus Wants You to Judge

I’ve always been a pretty big fan of the Ten Commandments. My favorites is the one that says “Thou shalt not judge.”

Oh, that one isn’t in there, you say?

Sorry, it’s easy to forget nowadays, especially in this country where many Christians carry on as though the entire Bible could be summed up by the phrase, “it’s all good, bro.”

In actual fact, there are a lot of urgent truths and important moral lessons in the Bible. Interestingly, almost all of them have fallen out of favor in modern American society. Here are just a few verses that aren’t particularly trendy or popular nowadays:

…WARNING: Politically incorrect truths ahead!

“Whoever harms one of these little ones that believes in me, it would be better for him if a millstone where tied around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the ocean.”

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.”

“But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, unless the marriage is unlawful, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

“For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.”

Strange as it may seem, enlightened, progressive Christians rarely attempt to wrestle Ephesians 5 or 2 Thessalonians 3 into a conversation. Yet, while the bulk of the Bible has ended up on our civilization’s cutting room floor, the warnings about “judging” are quoted and repeated continually, by Christians and non-Christians alike.

Apparently, the rest of the Book is outdated, outmoded, antiquated and fabricated, but the verses about judging — that stuff is gold, man.

Here’s a fun experiment: post something on your Facebook condemning any sin — not sinner, but sin. Maybe write a few paragraphs about why we shouldn’t kill babies, or why marriage is sacred. Write something defending truth. Write something combating popular cultural lies about morality. Write something where you call out an act — not a person — an act, and then sit back and wait for the responses. 

Statistically speaking, it will take only 4.7 seconds before a self identified Christian rushes in to insist that you must never speak out against any evil, ever, for any reason, lest you be guilty of “judging.” And then the “no judging” chorus will begin:

“We’re not allowed to judge.”

“Christians shouldn’t judge.”

“Jesus said to never judge.”

“You’re not a real Christian because you are judging.”

“You’re judging so I’m going to judge you and tell you that you’re a piece of garbage because you judge so much!”

“Judger! You’re a big fat judge-face, all you do is judge all day like a judging judge McJudgePants!”

And so on... Now, here’s the thing: they’re right — well, almost. Unfortunately, they left out an important word. It’s not that we shouldn’t judge at all — it’s that we shouldn’t judge WRONGLY.

The idea that we shouldn’t judge at all is

1) absurd,

2) impossible,

3) very much at odds with every moral edict in all of Scripture.

It’s also hypocritical, because telling someone not to judge is, in and of itself, a judgement. Any time you start a sentence with “you shouldn’t,” whatever comes next will constitute a judgement of some kind. Saying, “you shouldn’t judge,” is like saying, “there are no absolutes.”

Translation: you shouldn’t judge… except when judging people for judging. There are no absolutes… except the absolute that there aren’t any absolutes.

Yet, have you ever noticed that these “Don’t Judge” folks are nowhere to be found when the conversation turns to the Church next block, or domestic abusers, or the Nazis, or Republicans? I guarantee I could write a post condemning gay marriage opponents as bigots and homophobes and not a one of these pragmatists would swoop in to tell me not to “judge.”

Behind the Bible, my second favorite book is the dictionary. Let’s consult it, shall we?

Judge: To form an opinion of; decide upon; settle; to infer, think, hold as an opinion.

When you tell someone not to judge, you’re telling them to stop deciding things, to stop forming opinions, to stop thinking, and to stop inferring. Brilliant bit of philosophy, Plato.“Stop thinking and deciding!” Do you really think Jesus meant THAT when he told us not to judge? Well, I guess you can’t think about it one way or another if you’re adhering to this whole “never judge” schtick.

I know we live in a sound bite culture. Everything has to be condensed down to 14 syllables or less, and every concept must be communicated in under 12 seconds. Entire elections are decided this way. And while this strategy doesn’t work well in the democratic system, it’s an absolute catastrophic heretical disaster if you try to utilize it in the realm of theology.

Yes, Jesus said “Judge not,” but you have to read the rest of that passage, and then the rest of the Book to put those two words into context. Once you’ve done that, you’ll understand that what He meant is precisely the opposite of how it is translated by modern cowards who are looking for any excuse to shrink away from the task of standing up against our culture and its many lies.

We must judge. We must exercise judgement. We must be discerning and decisive. We must expose evil and identify sin. Only we must do it righteously and truly. Judge, but judge rightly. That’s the point. We are to judge the sin, not the sinner. 

People seem to love the latter part of that phrase, and then selectively forget the first portion.

We can not condemn a man to eternal damnation. We can not see inside his soul. This is an important point, but it doesn’t mean we can’t speak harshly about the atrocities of a particular individual. If a guy commits adultery, I’ll call him an adulterer. That’s not an insult or an evaluation of his soul; it’s a true and accurate judgement based on the fruits he has produced. If a guy steals, he is a thief. If he murders, he is a murderer. If he commits tyrannies, he is a tyrant.

Jesus stopped a bloodthirsty mob from stoning a woman to death for adultery. Famously, he said “let he without sin cast the first stone.” This profound Biblical event has since been contorted to mean that nobody can condemn any (popular) sin, or speak out against any (popular) evil, because nobody is perfect.

Nonsense.

Jesus wasn’t telling the crowd to chill out and be cool with infidelity; He was telling them that they don’t have the authority to pass final judgement on another human being for their moral shortcomings. In the immediate sense, Jesus was also stopping them from brutally killing a woman. This can not be construed into Him strolling in with a shrug and saying,“Hey, live and let live, dudes.” In fact, after he forgave the woman’s sin, he commanded her to “sin no more.”

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. That doesn’t mean that we must be without sin before we can call a sin a sin. Just because we make a judgment does not mean we are throwing rocks at a helpless woman. Sometimes, it means we are shedding light into a terrifying darkness.

Remember, this is the same Jesus who told us to separate the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the wolves; the Jesus who called his opponents “snakes” and “vipers”; the Jesus who made a whip and violently drove the money changers out of the temple; the Jesus who said he came to bring a sword and drive a wedge between families.

He was loving and peaceful, but He was also manly, strong, courageous, outspoken, decisive, and commanding. He wasn’t a hippy. He was, and is, a King and a Warrior. Our culture has an agenda, and the agenda has nothing to do with following Christ or His precepts. Flimsy modern weaklings have taken the “don’t judge” concept out of context — twisted it, perverted it, and used it as an excuse to sit silently while all manner of unspeakable evils happen in their midst.

They’ve tried to turn Christianity into a religion of apathy and permissiveness. I certainly make judgments about their slander of my faith. I judge it to be sacrilegious, evil, and despicable.

And I judge it rightly.

So, don’t judge? Wrong. Judge. We must judge. 

The Bible exists, in large part, to shape our judgement and to tell us how to judge. We must teach our kids to have good and moral judgement. We must equip them with the spiritual tools to exercise it publicly, without fear. We must show them how to be discerning, critical thinkers.

You can not raise your children without judgement; you can’t function as a civilized human being without judgement; and you certainly can’t be an obedient Christian without judgment.

I am a sinful person. If you would ever consider accepting and celebrating my sins for the sake of being “non-judgmental,” please do me a favor and stop doing me that favor. I don’t want to be made comfortable and confident in my wrongdoing.

I’d rather have you hurt my feelings as you help me get to Heaven, than protect my feelings as you usher me right along to the Fire.

 (Adapted after M. Walsh)