Critiquing: Are Christians Not Supposed to Judge?

February 16, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Judgment and Hypocrisy — Interpretation of John 7:24 — Gospel and Judgment — Ministry Job Decision — Advice for Trent

---

Introduction

The content of “Are Christians Not Supposed to Judge?” explores the nature of judgment within a Christian context, particularly focusing on interpreting biblical passages such as John 7:24 and the story of the woman caught in adultery. The discussion includes a response to the claim that Christians should not judge, nuances in types of judgment, and practical advice for choosing between ministry job offers.

Judgment and Hypocrisy

Contextual Analysis

The speakers emphasize the importance of context when interpreting biblical verses. They argue that broad statements against judgment, such as “judge not” from Matthew 7, should not be taken in isolation but understood within a broader narrative that addresses the nature of judgment itself.

Quote: “Jesus is complaining about, or prohibiting a hypocritical, condescending judgment, in which the person doing the judgment is more guilty of the kind of thing he’s judging another by.”

This assertion attempts to draw a distinction between hypocritical judgment and righteous judgment. The logic here rests on the assumption that context always clarifies a verse’s meaning, which is an interpretative method that relies heavily on a specific theological framework.

Logical Coherence

The argument presented suffers from several logical inconsistencies:

1. Cherry-Picking Verses: The content frequently warns against cherry-picking verses, yet selectively interprets specific passages to support its stance. This can lead to confirmation bias, where evidence is interpreted in a way that confirms pre-existing beliefs.
2. Equivocation: There is an equivocation fallacy present when discussing the term “judgment.” The content shifts between different meanings of judgment without clarifying distinctions, which can confuse the argument and its implications.
3. Unsupported Claims: The assertion that hypocritical judgment is the primary concern in Matthew 7 is not substantiated with broader textual evidence. The interpretation is presented as self-evident without sufficient backing.

Interpretation of John 7:24

Claim and Context

The content cites John 7:24, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment,” as a key verse supporting the notion that some forms of judgment are necessary and even commanded.

Quote: “Jesus is making a distinction. You can go back to John 7, verse 24, and unpack that more with regards to the context.”

Logical Coherence

While the content aims to clarify the distinction between appearance-based judgment and righteous judgment, the logical foundation remains shaky:

1. Contextual Assumptions: The interpretation assumes that the context of John 7:24 inherently supports the idea of righteous judgment as the speaker defines it. However, this is a theological interpretation rather than an objective fact.
2. Circular Reasoning: The argument that one must always consider the context to understand a verse often leads to circular reasoning. The context is interpreted based on preconceived theological notions, which are then used to justify the interpretation of the context.

Gospel and Judgment

Relationship Between Good News and Judgment

The content argues that communicating the gospel inherently involves making judgments about sin.

Quote: “You cannot communicate the gospel without communicating a judgment.”

Logical Coherence

This claim presents several logical issues:

1. False Dilemma: The content suggests a false dilemma by implying that one must either accept judgment as part of the gospel or fail to communicate the gospel effectively. This ignores other interpretations and methods of conveying religious messages without explicit judgment.
2. Burden of Proof: The claim that judgment is an essential part of the gospel lacks substantiation. It assumes a specific interpretation of religious texts without providing sufficient evidence to support this interpretation.

Ministry Job Decision

Practical Advice

The content offers practical advice for choosing between ministry job offers, emphasizing personal disposition and fit for specific roles.

Quote: “You, God distributes ministry by gifting, not by calling. There’s no biblical basis for the idea that you get called into different ministry responsibilities.”

Logical Coherence

While practical and contextually relevant, the advice given is based on several assumptions:

1. Unsubstantiated Claims: The statement about God distributing ministry by gifting rather than calling is presented as fact without substantiating evidence. This could be problematic for individuals who believe in a calling-based approach.
2. Confirmation Bias: The advice assumes that the speakers’ understanding of ministry distribution is universally applicable, potentially leading to confirmation bias.

Advice for Trent

Contextual Considerations

The speakers discuss the importance of personal disposition, training, and family considerations when choosing a ministry job.

Quote: “Your desires, what you like are hints as to the kind of personal profile that you have that you bring to the project.”

Logical Coherence

This section is largely practical and coherent but includes some assumptions:

1. Assumption of Uniformity: The advice assumes a uniform approach to ministry roles, which may not apply universally. Different denominations and communities may have varying criteria for ministry roles.
2. Subjectivity: The advice heavily relies on subjective factors such as personal preference and disposition, which may not always align with practical or theological considerations.

Cognitive Biases and Fallacies

Throughout the content, several cognitive biases and logical fallacies are evident:

1. Confirmation Bias: The content frequently interprets evidence in a way that confirms pre-existing theological beliefs, ignoring or downplaying contrary evidence.
2. Cherry-Picking: Selectively citing verses and interpreting them out of broader biblical context to support specific arguments.
3. Equivocation: Using different meanings of the term “judgment” interchangeably without clear distinctions, leading to confusion and misleading conclusions.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

The content makes several claims that are both unsubstantiated and dubious:

1. Interpretation of Hypocritical Judgment: The claim that Matthew 7 primarily addresses hypocritical judgment is not adequately substantiated with comprehensive textual evidence.
2. God’s Distribution of Ministry: The assertion that God distributes ministry by gifting rather than calling lacks sufficient biblical evidence and is presented without adequate support.

Testing Alleged Promises

To critically evaluate any alleged promises or claims, one should:

1. Empirical Testing: Seek empirical evidence to support any claims of divine promises or interventions.
2. Consistency: Evaluate the consistency of claims with observable reality and experiences.
3. Degree of Belief: Align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence, ensuring that stronger claims are supported by stronger evidence.

Conclusion

The content of “Are Christians Not Supposed to Judge?” presents several logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, and cognitive biases. It emphasizes the need for context in interpreting biblical passages but often fails to provide robust support for its interpretations. The advice on ministry job decisions is practical but rests on several assumptions that may not be universally applicable. A thorough critique highlights the necessity of substantiating claims and aligning belief with evidence.

---

If you have any questions or would like to discuss these arguments further, please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section.