Do Not Judge

 “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged,” Matthew 7:1. Jesus was very clear. We as his followers are not to engage in judging another. Yet, in spite of his clear command, judging the other lies at heart of the current conflict and resulting splintering of The UMC.

The word Jesus used indicates judging expresses a critical spirit that cuts down the other, viewing and treating them as “less than.” Judging is rooted in merit-based thinking and functioning. When we judge, we measure the other against some standard we have in our mind, noting how they fall short, failing to measure up to the expected standard. Their failure to measure up implies inadequacy. Our judging both blames and shames the other. The condemnation inherent in judging is our way of punishing the other for their failure.

Judging another is a part of our human condition. It is a primary way we establish our sense of identity. “I’m not that. I’m better than that.” It is a way we reassure ourselves that we are okay. We are better than those people. This pattern is so common that social scientists have given it a name: scapegoating. A scapegoat is the target of our critical, judgmental spirit, the one on whom we dump our anger. Attacking the scapegoat allows us to feel better about ourselves at their expense. That’s the unconscious emotional payoff we get from judging another.

When we judge another, we think we are saying something about them — their failure to measure up, their inadequacy, their status as less than. In reality, our judging another says more about us than it does about them. That’s what Jesus meant when he spoke of the log in our own eye in contrast to the speck in our neighbor’s eye (Matthew 7:3-5). Our focus on the speck in our neighbor’s eye — our judging them for their failure to measure up — blinds us to the log in our own eye. It helps us avoid seeing what we don’t want to see about ourselves.

So how do we move beyond judging the other?

Breaking our habit/pattern of judging another begins with awareness. Judging is something we all do. The key is recognizing when we do. In the original, Jesus’s command was “Stop judging.” To stop judging requires us to recognize when we are judging. We become aware that we are judging another so we can move beyond it.

Our awareness that we are judging another becomes an invitation, calling for a conscious choice. The invitation is to shift our focus. We consciously shift our focus from the other to ourselves, from their failure to measure up to what we don’t want to see about ourselves. We invite the Spirit to help us see what we don’t want to see — our own sense of inadequacy, our own fear of failure, our sense of shame about not being good enough. We allow our judging another to become a mirror through which we look at ourselves.

To do this kind of inner work — “first take the log out of your own eye,” Matthew 7:5 — requires us to set aside the merit-based thinking and functioning that is inherent to our human nature. It requires us to embrace grace — God’s unconditional acceptance and forgiveness.

The reason we push these parts of our lives outside our awareness is because of shame. We are afraid that when they are known, they will bring condemnation and rejection — the very things we do to those we judge. (Social scientists call this projection.) We are afraid to be known. That’s the essence of shame. We fear condemnation and judgment from others because that’s what we experience from ourselves. We shame ourselves for our inadequacies and fears. Our self-condemnation and shame are rooted in merit-based thinking — our failure to measure up to the expectations expressed in some standard (law). This emotional dynamic is the story of the garden in Genesis 3. Like the man and the woman, we find ways of hiding our nakedness — being known — from others, from God, and from ourselves. Fig leaves come in many shapes and sizes.

God’s faithful love — grace — frees us to deal with these shame-based parts of ourselves that we hide from ourselves and others. We can acknowledge them because God forgives them rather than condemns them, God accepts us unconditionally, just as we are, rather than rejects and abandons us. In other words, God doesn’t do what others do or what we do to ourselves. God doesn’t judge, condemn, or reject us. Facing these parts of ourselves, allowing them to be known by God and ourselves and trusted spiritual friends, brings healing to them.

Recognizing, acknowledging, and claiming our need of grace frees us to offer grace to others. We move beyond judging.

When Jesus instructed us to stop judging, he said “so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get,” Matthew 5:1b-2. I understand Jesus to mean how we deal with others reflects how we deal with ourselves. If we are critical and judgmental of other’s failure to measure up, we will be critical and judgmental of ourselves. We will shame ourselves. The way we deflect such self-condemnation and shame is by dumping it on others in the form of judging them (projection). However, if we respond to other’s failure to measure up with grace, understanding, and forgiveness, we will be able to treat our own failures and inadequacies with grace and forgiveness, as well.

Whenever we as the followers of Jesus engage in judging others, we are living out of our humanness and our brokenness, not out of our spirituality or our identity as the followers of Jesus. It reflects our reluctance to do the work of emotional-relational-spiritual healing that is the essence of being a follower of Jesus.

We in The UMC will never resolve the conflict over LGBTQ+ issues by arguing about the issues. The conflict only reinforces our sense that we are right and “they” are wrong. Focusing on how the other is wrong — judging — keeps us blind to the log in our own eye. It keeps us stuck in our humanness, blocking our spiritual progress.

The only way to resolve the conflict in The UMC (or any conflict, for that matter) is to shift our focus from the other and their failure to measure up to ourselves, allowing it to help us see what is in our own eye (heart). Only as we focus on what we contribute to the conflict will we be able to approach it differently. Perhaps when we recognize our own need of grace will we be in a position to offer it to others.

Looking Beyond the Symptoms

Symptoms are what motivate us to seek the help of a doctor. The doctor, in turn, looks beyond the symptoms to what is causing them. The doctor seeks to address the underlying germ or virus or disease that is causing the symptoms. The symptoms only go away when the root cause has been addressed.

Using this symptom-disease metaphor, we United Methodists are focused on symptoms without recognizing or addressing the underlying cause.

The conflict over how to deal with LGBTQ+ issues is a symptom. It only exists because of other, underlying issues. Those underlying issues have produced the conflict over LGBTQ+ issues. Until those underlying issues are identified and addressed, the issues related to LGBTQ+ individuals will never be resolved.

In my mind, the primary underlying issue is the interpretation of scripture. People on both sides of the LGBTQ+ issue value the Christian scriptures as the source book of faith. Interestingly, the statements about scripture in the Book of Discipline of the Global Methodist Church and of The United Methodist Church are identical. The difference lies in how scripture is viewed, interpreted and, consequently, used.

Most who identify themselves as traditionalists or conservatives view the Bible as the Word of God (capital W). For them, it is a divine book. They believe everything in the Bible reflects God’s truth. (Well, almost everything. There are some things they don’t accept, such as the stoning of a rebellious son or of a daughter who is pregnant outside of marriage, but they seldom talk about those kinds of things.) They read the Bible literally, understanding the Bible means what it says and says what it means. Reading the Bible literally does not require interpretation (in their minds). Following this way of reading scripture, the Book of Discipline of the Global Methodist Church condemns homosexuality as a sin, identifying it as a chosen sexual perversion. Their position is based upon what the Bible says. In turn, anyone who does not identify homosexuality as a sin is viewed as not believing the Bible.

Rather than reading scripture literally, the traditional United Methodist approach to interpreting scripture (what is today referred to as progressive) uses tradition, reason, and experience. It values and relies upon biblical scholarship. This approach speaks of Jesus rather than the Bible as the Word of God (capital W – John 1:1-5, 12-14, 16-18). It views the Bible as God’s gift to us, given through the work of numerous authors and editors. “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets” (Hebrews 1:1). Thus, the Bible is a human book as well as a divine book. God’s truth comes to us wrapped in a human wrapper. Identifying divine truth (the task of interpretation) requires us to identify the human dimensions—historical setting, cultural setting, theological viewpoint, language issues, etc. We find God’s word for us today in God’s word to the original audience within its historical and cultural situation.

This tradition-reason-experience approach recognizes the different voices in scripture. Each voice reflects the author’s attempt to understand God and how to relate to God. The voices often contradict and challenge each other. The challenge of interpretation is identifying the different voices and determining which voice best reflects the voice of God. Because Jesus is the fullest revelation of God—as opposed to the “many and various ways” God spoke in the past (Hebrews 1:1)—this way of interpreting the Bible reads through the lens of Jesus. It “hears” the voice of God primarily in the life and ministry of Jesus. “In these last days, God has spoken to us by a son. He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Hebrews 1:2, 3). In this way of interpreting scripture, every verse is not given the same weight of authority nor does every verse reflect God’s final revelation of truth. That most complete revelation is found in Jesus.

The task of interpretation calls us to distinguish between that which reflects the truth of God and that which reflects the human situation in which that truth was expressed. Consequently, the task of interpretation calls for our best thinking. Failure to distinguish between the human dimensions and the divine can result in viewing time-bound, cultural norms as divine truth. We end up chewing on the wrapper rather than tasting the sweetness of God’s truth.

The literal approach to reading scripture appears to be simpler. However, it has inherent dangers. When we read scripture literally, we open the door to using the Bible to validate what we already think and believe. We are confident in our belief because “the Bible says!” That confidence (arrogance?) leads us to use the Bible as a rule book, identifying right and wrong, righteousness and sin. From that posture, the Bible can easily be used as a weapon to condemn sin and the sinner. This use of scripture focuses upon behavior, particularly sinful behavior. It blocks self-awareness, blinding us to the critical, judgmental, condemning spirit and arrogant attitude that reside in our hearts. This process allows us to unconsciously create God in our image. Our way of thinking and living becomes identified as God’s ways and God’s will. Ultimately, this process blocks the renewing of the mind that is the catalyst to a cleansed heart and transformed life (Romans 12:2). We remain essentially unchanged, trapped in merit-based thinking and living.

In this literal way of reading and interpreting the Bible, Jesus is seen primarily as our savior who saves us from our sins and from hell. He is seldom looked to as the fullest revelation of the character of God and the ways of God. The focus on sin overshadows his emphasis upon the heart. Repentance becomes a prerequisite for forgiveness, making forgiveness conditional.

How we interpret scripture is, in my mind, the primary issue underlying the LGBTQ+ issues. It determines the other underlying issues, as well: the nature of the Christian life (“A good Christian does … doesn’t”), the nature of the church, the nature of grace, and, ultimately, the nature of God.

For those who read scripture literally, the Christian life is expressed in right belief (orthodoxy), right behavior (morals), and right worship. It is rule-oriented. For those who view scripture as a human-divine book and interpret it through the lens of Jesus, the Christian life is expressed in love, manifested in grace and forgiveness that embraces every person as a beloved child of God.

For those who read scripture literally, the church is the guardian of right belief, right behavior, and right worship. It serves as the moral policeman to society, condemning and resisting sin (behavioral sins). For those who interpret the Bible through the lens of Jesus, the church is a spiritual community who offers the world an alternative way of thinking and living. It embodies the grace and forgiveness of Jesus, valuing and embracing every person as a beloved child of God.

Those who read scripture literally proclaim grace and forgiveness. That grace and forgiveness is conditional, accessible only through repentance. “If you repent, God will forgive you.” Those who interpret the Bible through the lens of Jesus view God’s grace and forgiveness as unconditional. God’s acceptance and forgiveness are gifts freely given. We respond to these gifts in faith. God’s grace and forgiveness move us beyond a focus upon sin. They free us from slavery to guilt, shame, and fear. They free us to love God and others, including those who are not like us.

When we recreate God in our image — one of the inevitable results of a literal reading of scripture — we generally think of God in terms of authority, viewing him (and in this way of reading, God is always male) as a judge who gives us what we deserve. When we read scripture through the lens of Jesus, we come to know God as a God of steadfast, faithful love (Hebrew: chesed) whose love never waivers, who never gives up on us or abandons us. We come to know God as a God of grace and forgiveness who responds to us with compassion and mercy.

How we resolve each of these underlying issues — how to interpret scripture, the nature of the Christian life, the nature of the church, the nature of grace, the nature of God — determines our position on the LGBTQ+ issues facing The UMC. The LGBTQ+ issues are but the symptoms of these deeper, underlying issues.

Purity

 In a special called conference this weekend, 81 Central Texas churches formally disaffiliated from The United Methodist Church and the Central Texas Conference. There are more to come.

In my mind, the reasons being given for their disaffiliation can be summed up in a single word: purity — doctrinal purity (orthodoxy), moral purity (the condemnation of homosexuality), biblical purity (the literal reading of scripture).

Those leaving have been led to believe that United Methodists no longer hold to traditional orthodoxy. They have been told United Methodists have abandoned belief in the virgin birth, Jesus’s miracles, the resurrection, hell, and salvation through Jesus alone — just to name a few. What these individuals have been told is simply not true. The doctrinal standards of The United Methodist Church have not changed since the founding of the Methodist Church in the 1700’s. While there may be some who reject these beliefs, these beliefs are still a part of the doctrinal standard of The UMC. They are used in examining those seeking ordination. The vast majority of elders in The UMC believes and preaches them.

Those leaving The UMC believe in moral purity, particularly in relation to sexuality. They insist that homosexuality is a sin that is incompatible with biblical teaching. This position was the presenting issue that initially led to the disaffiliation process. Those who hold this position appeal to the purity code found in the Old Testament book of Leviticus. The proposed Book of Discipline of The Global Methodist Church condemns homosexuality as a perversion that must be corrected. Consequently, those who identify as gay or lesbian will experience judgment and condemnation in this new denomination. They will not be welcomed and accepted unconditionally. They will not be allowed to hold leadership positions in their churches, particularly as clergy.

By the term biblical purity, I mean believing the Bible says what they believe it says. They allow little room for interpretation or biblical scholarship. They allow no room for differing views of scripture.

It seems to me these disaffiliating churches have left The UMC in pursuit of purity — doctrinal purity, moral purity, biblical purity.

Purity is an illusion.

The purity these churches desire is better described as sameness. They all hold the same position on these issues. They all believe alike. Their sameness presents the appearance of unity, but that appearance will quickly dissolve when disagreement over some other issue arises. Disagreement will not be tolerated. It will lead to rejection or to another split.

Purity is impossible.

Our human condition precludes purity. By nature, we are and always will be imperfect, in process, lacking in some area, rebellious in others (sinful). The desire for purity is an effort to overcome these aspects of our normal human condition. It is an attempt to escape being human. It is an attempt to be like God (what the man and woman in the Garden sought in their choice to disobey the directive of God).

Purity is an issue of the heart, not morality.

Ironically, the insistence upon purity reflects an impure heart. Jesus, following the prophet Jeremiah, taught the source of our problems was in the heart (Mark 7:21-23). The heart — the attitudes and inner spirit which govern our lives — is what needs to be made clean (pure). The experience of the psalmist leads us to pray, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me” (Psalm 51:10) and “Give me an undivided heart” (Psalm 86:11). Instead, we are inclined to focus on behavior — morals, right and wrong. This focus is based on the belief that right behavior is the key to purity.

Jesus told a parable that pointed to the danger of focusing on behavior rather than the heart (Luke 11:24-25, Matthew 12:43-45). A demon was cast out and the house (life) swept clean with everything put in order. Wrong behavior was eliminated; right behavior was put in place. Later, when the demon returned, he found the house (life) clean, but empty. It had not been filled with anything that gave it life. Seeing the empty condition of the house, the original demon found seven other demons, inviting them to move into the house. The result was the last condition was worse than the first – seven demons versus one. The house was filled with evil. Right behavior that is not paired with a right spirit leads to a judgmental, condemning spirit. Focusing on how another’s life is out of order in comparison to his own, the person is blind to the spirit out of which he lives.

 The spirit of condemnation and judgment that is expressed in relation to homosexuality indicates unrecognized and unaddressed issues of the heart. Jesus warned against judging others, calling us first to recognize the 2x4 in our own eye, that is, what is in our heart. A judgmental spirit exposes the unaddressed issues in our own heart (our 2x4, our shadow). It indicates a lack of self-awareness. Blind to our own need of grace, we have little grace to offer others (Luke 7:36-50). “The one to whom little is forgiven, loves little” (Luke 7:47b).

Purity is rooted in merit-based thinking and relating.

Those who insist on purity live out of merit-based thinking. They barter acceptance in exchange for conformity (another word for sameness). Their acceptance is conditional, given “if” and “when.” For those who identify as gay and/or lesbian and/or trans, repentance is a prerequisite to being accepted and included. Repentance is viewed as the path to purity. “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). God claims us (Ephesians 1:4-5) and embraces us long before we confess or repent of our sins. John Wesley called this prevenient grace.

At its core, purity is a veiled power-play.

Bartering acceptance in exchange for conformity, coupled with judging, condemning, and rejecting those who fail to conform, is an abuse of power. It is using power over, down against another – a use of power Jesus expressly condemned (Mark 10:42-45). It is the way the world uses power. In the kingdom, power is used to serve. It is used on behalf of others, particularly the powerless. Power in the kingdom is used to empower.

I grieve the disaffiliation that these churches have chosen. I respect their right to make the decision and the desire it reflects. Yet I fear they have been misled. I particularly grieve the lack of grace I perceive in their position. I grieve that our polarization reflects the polarization of our culture and our splintering reflects the way of the world. The apostle Paul identified it as one of the many works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21). Thus, this disaffiliation grows out of our default human nature (the flesh), not out of our spirituality or our discipleship. I grieve that we have failed to love one another as Jesus commanded. In doing so, we have failed to offer the world God’s way of dealing with our differences.

As I grieve, I want to move beyond my anger and my hurt and my own judgmental spirit. So I pray, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.”

Merciful God, may it be!

Whose Voice?

One reason people misinterpret what the Bible says is their failure to recognize the many voices in scripture. They read the Bible as though it speaks with one voice. They read everything in the Bible as though it were the voice of God. In reality, the Bible has many voices.

The Bible contains multiple works, from a wide variety of sources that span centuries of Hebrew history. Each work reflects the efforts of different individuals and/or groups to understand who God is and the ways of God. These different works do not present a common understanding of how to relate to God. As a result, the reader must discern which biblical voice most echoes the voice of God.

Walter Brueggeman, world renowned biblical scholar, identifies two predominant voices in scripture. One voice excludes while the other welcomes and includes. For the voice that excludes, acceptance is based upon conformity to a prescribe set of expectations (law). Those who fail to measure up to the expectations are excluded. I describe this way of relating as merit-based. In contrast to this merit-based way of relating is grace-based relating. Grace-based relating is the voice that welcomes and includes. Acceptance is a gift that comes from God.

When we read scripture, the voice we hear is the one that echoes our own voice. It is the voice that reflects our own thinking. It is the voice that represents how we unconsciously relate to God.

Of the two voices, Jesus spoke the voice of grace and forgiveness. Jesus accepted and embraced all, excluding no one. Because Jesus is the fullest revelation of God, the voice of God is heard in the voice of Jesus. Thus, when we read the Bible, we must read it through the lens of Jesus. We must listen for — and follow! — the voice that welcomes and includes.

John 10 records a metaphor of the sheep following the voice of their shepherd (John 10:4). Jesus identified himself as the good shepherd (John 10:11). His sheep hear his voice and follow him.

We follow the voice of Jesus when we view and value, accept and embrace everyone as a beloved child of God. Excluding is not the way of God. It is not the way of Jesus. It is not way of the followers of Jesus. 

Test the Spirits

As of today, over ninety churches in the Central Texas Conference have voted to disaffiliate from The UMC. These churches supposedly went through a time of discernment before voting to do so. That number will likely increase as other churches are currently involved in the discernment process.

These votes to disaffiliate raise questions in my mind: what criteria did these churches use in their effort to determine what they would do? Did they seek to discern the Spirit’s guidance? If so, what did they identify as the Spirit’s guidance? Did they merely operate out of what they thought and believed, assuming it reflected the mind of Christ and aligned with the heart of God?

The author of First John identified the need for discernment. “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1). In doing so, the author also identified the focus of discernment. His exhortation is an important guide to any church involved in a discernment process regarding disaffiliation (or any other issue).

The author’s exhortation calls us to exercise discernment. Discernment is about discerning what is of God and what is not — “to see whether they are from God.” It is the ability to distinguish truth from partial truth, the genuine from the pretentious, what is healthy from what is crippling, what is life-giving from what is destructive, good from evil. Discernment is what helps us determine the will of God.

Discernment is the work of the Spirit; hence, it is spiritual discernment. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul identified the ability to exercise discernment as a gift of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:10).

The author’s exhortation calls us to give spiritual discernment a conscious place in the life of our church. It is to be exercised every time our congregation faces a challenge or crisis or decision. It is to be exercised in regard to the issue being faced and the decision to be made, in regard to what is said and what is done, in regard to motives and objectives. Sadly, spiritual discernment is often absent in many churches. It has been replaced by committee recommendations and majority votes in which the Spirit and the Spirit’s guidance have been assumed or unconsciously neglected. This lack of discernment opens the door to power brokers imposing their will on the congregation.

The author’s exhortation also instructs us regarding the focus of our discernment. “Test the spirits.” Spiritual discernment goes beneath the surface to the underlying spirit, beyond the issue to the spirit with which the issue is being addressed.

According to the information being published, those voting to disaffiliate from The UMC base their decision on a combination of issues: the place of LGBTQ+ individuals in the life of the church (ordination of LGBTQ+ clergy), moral standards that view homosexuality as a sin, the view and use of scripture, etc. Each of these issues is considered to be a right-and-wrong issue, that is, there is a right position and a wrong position. Consequently, decisions are based upon what is viewed as “right.” In such decisions, discernment is not needed.

The author of First John calls us to go beyond the issue to the spirit with which the issue is addressed. The author did not deal with whether an issue was right or wrong. Rather, he called his readers (us) to “test the spirits,” that is, to discern the underlying spirit. Does that spirit reflect the spirit of Jesus? Does it expresses the grace and forgiveness and unconditional acceptance Jesus offered to every person?

Moral issues call for black-and-white, right-and-wrong thinking. They involve moral standards by which we are judged (and by which we judge others) — what Paul called “the law.” Failure to conform to such standards brings condemnation and judgment. Moral issues are an expression of merit-based thinking. Merit-based thinking is about earning and deserving. What we receive is determined by what we do. We get what we deserve. Merit-based thinking opens the door to condemnation, judgment, rejection, and exclusion of those who fail to conform to the moral standards or who fall short of their demands. The spirit of merit-based thinking is one of condemnation and judgment. It is an arrogant spirit that looks down on those who do not measure up from a posture of moral superiority. Such a spirit does not reflect the spirit of Jesus.

The spirit of Jesus grows out of grace-based thinking. It is expressed in grace and forgiveness, in unconditional acceptance that views and values, accepts and embraces all as beloved children of God. Because it does not deal in earning and deserving, such a spirit looks beyond behavior to see the need and hurt of the other. It responds to the other with compassion and understanding. The spirit of Jesus is a servant spirit (Mark 9:35; 10:42-54). It gives freely and generously of self to address the need of the other. This grace-filled, servant spirit of Jesus mirrors the spirit of God. The Spirit cultivates the spirit of Jesus in our hearts by teaching us to think with what Paul called the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16; Philippians 2:1-11). The Spirit moves us from merit-based thinking to grace-based thinking, from a critical, judgmental spirit to a grace-filled, forgiving spirit.

If we want to discern what is of God, don’t get trapped in arguing right-and-wrong. Test the spirit!

Hate the Sin

It’s one of those pious statements church people often say. It has been repeated frequently in the splintering of The UMC over the LGBTQ+ issue. “Love the sinner; hate the sin.”

On the surface, it sounds right, but beneath the surface, it is deeply flawed.

On the surface, the statement appears to pass all of the theological tests. It proclaims love for the person while maintaining a strong moral stance against behavior labeled as sinful. It refuses to compromise a moral posture. In reality, the statement reflects the thinking of Western Evangelical Christianity rather than the spirit of Jesus.

Western Evangelical Christianity emphasizes belief and behavior. A Christian is someone who believes the right things about Jesus, the Bible, sin, etc. That belief is expressed in moral living coupled with faithful church involvement. This emphasis has at least one major flaw: it focuses upon externals, overlooking the heart — the interior realm — that was central to Jesus’s thinking.

“For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come,” Mark 7:21. Jesus rejected the scribes’ and Pharisees’ focus upon behavior, calling attention to what was in the human heart. The condition of the heart was the problem to be addressed, not behavior that failed to conform to a religious or moral standard — the tradition of the elders (Mark 7:1-23). The attitudes and spirit with which we live — the condition of the heart — are what needs to be changed.

Focusing on externals — belief and behavior — allows us to criticize and judge those whose behavior fails to conform to our religious-moral standards just as the Pharisees criticized Jesus’s disciples because they “ate with defiled hands” (Mark 7:2). When we hate the sin, we are criticizing and judging. We say we love the sinner so we won’t think of ourselves as judging. We blind ourselves to what is in our hearts. A critical, judgmental spirit is a heart issue — the very thing Jesus said was the problem.

Focusing on externals — belief and behavior — appeals to our ego-centric nature. Every time we criticize and judge another person, we unconsciously say “I’m not like that.” Our critical, judgmental spirit expresses a not-so-subtle sense of “I’m better than them.” It looks down on the other as inadequate and less than. The word for such an attitude is arrogance — an issue of the heart.

Focusing on externals — belief and behavior — reflects merit-based thinking. We profess to love the sinner, but our love is limited. We do not love them fully or freely. We do not accept them unconditionally. When we say “hate the sin,” we condemn their sin, viewing it (and them) as unacceptable. Our authentic acceptance of them is reserved for when they no longer sin. Our love is conditional — merit-based.

Focusing on externals — belief and behavior — repeats the very thing Jesus rejected in the Pharisees.

To be a follower of Jesus is to allow the things Jesus taught to shape how we think and live. Jesus related to every person with grace and forgiveness. He did not indulge in the emotional games of criticizing, judging, and condemning. To be a follower of Jesus is to embrace his spirit of grace and forgiveness, laying aside our inclination to judge, criticize, and condemn. Jesus viewed and valued, accepted and embraced every person as a beloved child of God and as a member of the covenant community. His acceptance was unconditional. The other person’s conformity to or failure to measure up to a religious-moral standard did not impact how Jesus viewed or treated him. To be a follower of Jesus is to embrace that spirit of unconditional acceptance that sees beyond our differences to embrace the other as someone that God loves.

To be a follower of Jesus is to do what Jesus taught. It is to love as Jesus loved. Loving as Jesus loved does not involve “hating the sin.” In fact, loving as Jesus loved focuses on the person, not on sin.

Our pride in “loving the sinner, hating the sin” reflects our struggle to love as Jesus loved. It reflects a heart problem.

 

Scapegoats

We all have them. For Cain, it was Abel. For the Jews of Jesus’s day, it was the Samaritans and the Gentiles. For the Pharisees, it was those who didn’t follow the scribal interpretation of the law. For the Republicans, it’s the left-leaning Democrats with their socialist agenda. For the Democrats, it’s the Republicans with their pro-business, dark-money conservativism. For the MAGA crowd, it’s the RINOs and the libs. For the Lincoln Project, it’s Trump and his supporters. For those advocating white supremacy, it’s people of color and immigrants. For The UMC, it’s the GMC. For the GMC, it’s The UMC. We all have our scapegoats.

A scapegoat is an individual or a group that another individual or group views negatively. The scapegoat is viewed as the source of a problem or of an unwelcomed situation. Viewing the scapegoat through this negative lens leads first to judging them and then to speaking critically of them. The scapegoat is to blame—“It’s their fault. They’re the problem. If it weren’t for them . . . !” The blame, in turn, can lead to treating the scapegoat cruelly, harshly, even abusively. The scapegoat is viewed and treated as being in a one-down, less-than position.

Not only do we all have them, it seems we also need them. We use scapegoats in at least three ways. First, they are a way we establish our own sense of identity and our sense of being okay. “We are not like them!” The implication is that we are better than them. Scapegoats are also a convenient way to avoid issues we don’t want to acknowledge and don’t know how to address. By blaming the scapegoat, we can live in denial, blind to ourselves and to our contribution to the problem. In addition, scapegoats are an easy target of our unrecognized, unaddressed, and unresolved anger. They allow us to dump our anger with a not-so-subtle sense of self-righteousness.

While we assign blame to the scapegoat, the scapegoating process is really about us. It is about what lies in our shadow that we do not recognize or acknowledge. It is about old pain that we stuffed down out of our awareness, leaving it unrecognized, unaddressed, and unresolved. Because we cannot face it or own it, this pain gets projected out onto others. Unresolved pain gets projected outward onto others. Unaddressed grief becomes a grievance directed at others. In other words, our scapegoat is a mirror reflecting what we don’t want to see about ourselves.  

It seems Jesus understood the emotional dynamic at play in the scapegoating process. In the Sermon on the Mount, he taught “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while 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 neighbor’s eye” (Matthew 7:3-5). We become critical and judgmental of others when we do not recognize the 2x4 in our own eye. Our unrecognized, unaddressed, unresolved pain gets projected onto others in the form of criticism and judgment. Our critical spirit is the indicator of inner pain needing to be recognized, acknowledged, addressed, and resolved. 

We all have our scapegoats. That reality raises two questions. First, who—what individual, what group—is my scapegoat? To answer this question, we only need to identify those we repeatedly criticize, judge, find fault with, and feel anger toward. The second question: what am I avoiding by focusing on my scapegoat? What about myself do I not see because of my focus on the faults of others? What is the 2x4 in my own eye that I don’t see because I am focused on the speck in my neighbor’s eye?

Scapegoating is a normal part of our human nature. It is a dimension of our constructed, ego-centric self. It is the inevitable expression of us-them thinking. Jesus warned us about these kinds of emotional games. “Do not judge,” he said (Matthew 7:1).

For those of us who are the followers of Jesus, scapegoating is not the last word. The Spirit is at work in us, bringing us to Christ-like spiritual maturity. That work includes healing the emotional wounds and the old pain we have stuffed into our shadow (an often neglected aspect of spiritual formation). “First take the log out of your own eye,” Jesus said. Dealing with and resolving our own inner pain changes how we see and treat others. It changes how we view and deal with the speck in their eye. As we work through our pain in pursuit of healing, we become more understanding of and compassionate with others. Rather than being critical and judgmental of them, we become supportive and helpful as they do the hard work of dealing with their pain. As the Spirit heals our pain and matures us emotionally-spiritually-relationally, we move beyond us-them thinking. The Spirit leads us beyond scapegoating.

Scapegoating is not a characteristic of the follower of Jesus.