Tuesday will be my "official" meeting with the bishop regarding ordination. He has my psych exam report now, so that should be a fun conversation...or maybe he won't mention it if I'm sane enough. We have spoken before, I rose to speak in defense of campus ministries during the diocesan convention which he thanked me for after the fact. I also met him on the Day of Information. I'm going to ask, provided the the Commission on Ministry (COM) moves me along quickly, if I could possibly enter seminary in the fall. I may have mentioned that I've been interested in attending either the seminary in Berkeley CA or Sewanee TN. For reasons that I may go into later, I'm now thinking of going to the seminary at Yale. Yeah, the one in Connecticut. The bishop also went there, but I have some compelling reasons to go and I certainly want to do a campus visit.

Wednesday will be my meeting with the Canon to the Ordinary. In Episcopalese that means the bishop's chief of staff. He is my COM shepherd who is to lead me through the COM process and check on my paperwork etc. I've also met him before when he came to our Thursday night young adult service and stayed for dinner.

Saturday will be my interview with the COM. It begins at 1:30. Actually I have two interviews; the COM will be divided into two groups in two conference rooms and I switch conference rooms after thirty minutes. And I'm so nervous about that.

Judging Judgment

After some hand wringing about whether or not I am too hard on people, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is a big difference between judging and the practice of critique or discernment. The problem is that all three are thought to be the same thing nowadays. I would like to tease out the differences through scripture and example.

The reason I think I need to write/think through this is because “judging” has a bad reputation and it is frequently used in a strawman argument against religious progressives. Have you ever heard a conservative dismiss an argument made by a progressive because the progressive makes a judgment against the conservative and then the conservative accuses the progressive of being hypocritical? …Because the progressive is judging, and they shouldn’t be!

I’ve heard the point made and I need to make an argument against being made irrelevant. I also think there are some progressives who buy into the idea that they cannot make judgments. These progressives still make judgments even though they try to deny themselves the ability. Eventually, some religious progressives then deny themselves a place in conversation. I want to be clear that religious progressives can make discerning observations and make critiques without feeling guilty afterward. The fact is that we need judgment; it is impossible to function without some level of it. How can we recover an acceptable form of judgment?

Let’s start with the Sermon on the Mount and the phrase “judge not lest ye be judged.” The phrase is frequently uttered to someone who is being particularly harsh on someone else or on some circumstance. Here is the phrase in context:

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:1-5, NASB)

This passage isn’t about the practice of judging as much as it is about hypocrisy. That doesn’t mean one has carte blanche to judge so long as they feel themselves completely righteous. Humans are quite adept at minimizing hypocrisies and maximizing their sense of righteousness when it serves their purposes and it is imperative that one recognizes this. It seems implicit to me that that one must consider the Golden rule that appears seven verses later. I think that the proper response is to ask, in addition to “is the action in question right/wrong/neither?” but also whether I would want that standard to apply to me as well…and do I in actuality apply it to myself? There is then an immediate softening effect in the judgment.

My favorite story about judging and not judging is from John: the story of the adulterous woman.

^8:1 Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives. ² And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. ³ And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, ⁴ They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. ⁵ Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? ⁶ This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. ⁷ So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. ⁸ And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. ⁹ And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. ¹⁰ When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? ¹¹ She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John, KJV)

This story is interesting for a few reasons. It was indeed the Law that adulterers were to be put to death (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). But one must ask— and I think the question would have run through Jesus’ mind—where was the man? Both are supposed to be put to death according to the Law. Another matter of interest is as to whether this story even belongs in the Gospel of John. In many of the early authoritative Greek manuscripts, the story is not there. It may have become canonical sometime as late as the 8^th-12^th centuries. Still, the story is consistent with Jesus’s program.

In the story we see what “judgment” is at its best. Jesus saves the woman from the death that would have been meted out by those who would have also been convicted according to their own standards. Jesus does not condemn her, but offers critique when he says, “go and sin no more.” As Jean Bethke Elshtain says, “"Judge not" is…not an injunction to spineless acceptance but a caution against peremptory legalisms that leave no space for acts of compassion and witness.” In the same article by Elshtain, she quotes Mary Higdon as saying that “Jesus' message was: do not stone people, do not cast them out, do not write them off. His target was punitive self-righteousness.” But we are still able (enabled, actually, by the gift of reason) to be critical and discerning. …How do we use that ability?

So my current, imperfect, definition of “proper” judgment is this:

1) the ability to critique an action of a person that does not negate the person’s inherent dignity or close off the possibility for positive growth and 2) the ability to critique the ideas of others, without attacking the person, and with the goal of fostering the idea’s improvement or jettison, after thoughtful and accurate consideration of the idea as it is.