darth_ender said:
Bingowings said:
Judge your own actions not the actions of others but in a nuanced way seems to be the message of the piece.
Others were judging Him. Being without sin he can pass judgement on their passing of judgement on Him.
I find it hard to believe that this is what Jesus taught, or what anyone believes. If you think about it, you judge my actions, including any prejudice you see in me. If I beat my children or cheated on my wife or murdered my next-door-neighbor, I'm sure you would judge my actions as evil. Would such not be righteous judgment?
But you are certainly correct that Jesus is in the best of positions to judge others, being without sin.
This brings up a whole other broad aspect of the term "judge". Beat, cheat, murder are actions which must be "judged" in order to produce a final conviction and condemnation. People who commit these grave offences are no longer brothers within the community. It's not a matter of realizing that you have sins as bad or worse and must focus on that. Justice must be done. Who must produce justice? When and in what venue? For the Christian, God ultimately provides. The State, when consistantly trying to act within True Civil Law, must be relied upon. A religion of Law can deputize leading members of the community. Even the Church can, without stepping on State perogatives, step in and provide some decisions. All of this requires a great deal of judgement by, hopefully, Christian people.
In the story of the adultress (possibly extra-canonical, btw) a people of The Law attempted to carry out their terrible responsibility. They paused to receive guidance from a Rabbi. Christ reminds them that The Law is to lead ultimately to Mercy and that they were not truly qualified to deliver such an ultimate condemnation and conviction. Then what happens? WWJD? Christ turns and JUDGES the horrible wicked behavior of the adultress and admonishes, exhorts, and commands that she go to where she should be without sinning any further.
Context and who is acting as judge matters. In The Sermon on the Mount, Christ delivers a shocking set of instructions. The State Church, obviously wishing to escape the judgement of their human cattle while gaining even better control over them, insisted and insists that all of these instructions must apply to all Christian laity at all times. Is this what Christ intended? A careful reading of the Gospels will reveal that the "Disciples" were NOT the laity. Many times Christ speaks to the general audience and then pulls the disciples aside for further special instruction. These were very special MISSIONARY CLERGY (I strongly suspect they were the 72). Furthermore, the intstructions were meant for a very special and limited period of time (Christ's Ministry, when they received special help and protection.) Towards the end of Luke, Christ makes it clear that the special period has ended and Christian missionaries must begin behaving as regular human beings in the natural world.
Paul instructs the leaders to avoid contentiousness in their regular, day-to-day lives. They are to be EXTREMELY judgemental all the while. They were never to give the impression that sin was no big deal. They could give stern admonishment in appropriate circumstances. Christians may not walk around the shopping mall with a chip on their shoulders breathing fire and brimstone while others are just trying to find some new clothes. They are not to be unduly disruptive. They should lead by example when they are "out in the world". When they are in a debate sort of venue challenged....