Recently I was listening to an episode of my favorite radio show, Philosophy Talk. If I remember correctly it was “The Demands of Morality”. (I listen to several at a time as downloaded podcast since the live broadcast in San Francisco doesn’t reach me.) During the episode the philosophers and their guest began to discuss whether one is obligated to give a begging person their spare change.
Of course, the utilitarian perspective on the matter was debated: should you give money to someone who may feed their addiction to drugs or alcohol? Wouldn’t it be wiser to buy them food instead? As someone who has lived in San Francisco, where I used a lot of public transportation and walked everywhere (contra San Antonio, where you need a car to get from point A to point B), this was particularly relevant for me, because I never found peace as regards how to live in relation to the many people who are homeless in that city.
Ken Taylor’s response grabbed my attention. He said that he used to keep a limited amount of spare change on him so that he could give the money, and he didn’t feel obligated to know how the money would be used because the money itself was a secondary matter. Instead, the primary virtue of giving away that spare change had little to do with financial charity and everything to do with honoring human dignity. Often the impoverished people of our society are treated as less than human. When Taylor would give them change he would make sure to look them in the eye, greet them, and then give them the money. Why? Because in a world where you are ignored by thousands of people, and where people want to avoid you are an inconvenience, the mere act of eye-to-eye contact, of being addresses as a person, may mean more than we realize.
I was struck by this answer. I know that human dignity is something that factored into my thinking as I wrestled with the wisdom of giving my spare change to someone who may use it wrongly, but Taylor reminded me that there may be something more to the matter than trying to determine whether the money will be used wisely, there is the reality that the person who in shame is having to ask you for their daily income may have a million reasons for being where they are in life, a million reasons of which we are unaware, and every time a person passes them as if they are less than human it adds another reason to just survive. Whether or not our spare change–or even greater deeds like giving away a meal, or working in a shelter–places a person on the path toward recovery shouldn’t be our primary motivator, since there is no way to know how a person may respond to an act of kindness, but instead, human dignity should be our motivator.
As a Christian informed by ideas like the imago Dei, and the second greatest commandment, it would seem that I would wrestle less with utilitarian ethics and embrace the virtue of honoring another human as human. This isn’t to downplay the importance of societies wrestling with how to best serve and care for their population of people who are homeless, but it does challenge the excuse that I have given myself in the past that I don’t need to give because the gift will be misused. I was challenged by Taylor’s response and it reminded me that the gift is secondary, the receiver is primary.
I’ve always found this a difficult question, and have been frustrated when I offered to buy someone a meal and they made up some nonsensical excuse for why they couldn’t walk the block with me to the local restaurant.
Great angle here. The eye contact is key. But can’t that still happen without giving money? Perhaps accompanied by an offer to walk with them and buy food, bus ticket, etc.? This takes extra time, but still affirms the dignity of the person asking for money. And it helps ensure that money is not mis-used–a mis-use which, indeed, contributing to (even if unwittingly) runs the risk of *compromising* that person’s dignity.
In other words, on the basis of imago Dei as en ethical principle (rather than utilitarian ethics as such), it can still be a good idea not to give money to someone who may use it to fall deeper into addictive behavior. Though I resonated with your line about not ever really finding peace on this one–it’s a tough question.
Indeed, I don’t think this is an either-or: either offer to purchase them food in order to guarantee the money spent won’t be misused or honor their human dignity by giving them spare change. I do think that Taylor’s view prevents us from some excuses, such as the ones I might use: I’m too busy to buy them a lunch so I’ll wait until next time. I don’t have enough money to buy them lunch, so I can’t give anything at all.
That said, at least from my experience, the change we give people is rarely the thing that leads to their further addiction. Drug and alcohol addiction is powerful, and if people don’t have money they will find some way to obtain their fix. This could include trying to steal it (dangerous), stealing money from others (dangerous), or engaging in further dehumanizing acts like “sexual favors” in order to “pay” for the substance. As much as I’d like to believe that severing the financial resources (and we might ask how far a dollar or two goes) helps dry up access to the addictive substance I find this unlikely.
So, for me, this brings me back to what actions can I do and what impact might those actions have on the person in need. While offering to buy a meal is ideal it remains quite possible that people become angry with us when we offer this solution not because they are so overcome by evil that they are pure selfishness (as I’ve heard some people frame it), but that their bodies crave the addictive substance more than food itself. Their bodies are so troubled that offering them food may seem to them more like starvation that starvation itself. This doesn’t mean that they are right in their request for something other than food, but I think it is worth keeping in mind how powerful bodily urges—even diseased urges like drug addiction–are over the human mind.
In the end, the only pat answer that will work in every case is to seek God’s Spirit and do as He prompts. And if it’s to look them in the eye as you describe, then so be it. But be sure to focus on the Lord, because I believe He will at times prompt you to just keep walking. Other times He will prompt you to buy food. Other times He will want you to tell the beggar of Jesus’ love. It really depends, and has nothing to do with their dignity per se. Sometimes losing your dignity is the only way you can hear the Lord, and dignity is poor substitute is a poor substitute.
In Mark 10, Jesus did not feed the beggar blind Bartimaeus. He healed him of his blindness… but not indiscriminately, and not to recognize his humanity. He did it in recognition of Bartimaeus’ faith. Luke 18 gives a little more detail, where it says the man gave praise to the Lord for being healed, and the people who saw him healed gave glory to God. The beggars I have talked to, whose mental illness are not too dangerous to be around, are not generally looking for God. If they are, we should feed them Christ, and yes, food should come with that so they can see our compassion. I admit to failing in this myself, but it isn’t about their dignity per se. In my opinion, to simply reduce it to that is to reduce it to yourself and what you can live with doing or not doing. If you need to give them something more than change, then give them the Word. If God is in fact leading you to look them in the eye, then it is God doing that, and so should not be a response to a guilty conscience (if that is what it is… I apologize if it is not). It is not about respecting them as people to me, to look them in the eye, but about respecting them as Children of God. If looking them in the eye does that, so be it. But sharing the gospel is a more powerful example. And once again, I must admit my own failure at this as I share.
In Luke 16, Jesus tells of the beggar Lazarus. But the emphasis here isn’t even on Lazarus, but on the rich man who owned the home outside which Lazarus begged. It seems from the detail that Lazarus would in fact receive Lazarus’ scraps to eat… not much perhaps but enough that he didn’t leave. But the point does not even seem to turn on that; it just sets the scene. The real point is that the beggar was willing to receive the promises of a Messiah spoken of by the prophets; the rich man was not. The reason for their degree of openness was connected to how much they had, and how much they looked to God. The beggar it seems looked to God more than the rich man did. So once again, I urge you to search the spirit as you approach a beggar and seek discernment. Would they receive the prophets? Then, share Jesus with them boldly. If not, I suggest you leave them be, and perhaps the next time you see him/her the Spirit will guide you differently, as He did with Peter in Acts 3… Peter healed a beggar he must have seen before many times, but he waited for the right time to give him something truly meaningful.
Hi,
Good post! If you find that interesting you might enjoy Christian philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff on the moral status of poverty – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Ph-9oyoBI. His big idea is that it is inappropriate to regard poverty solely as a moral failure on the part of the poor, or caring for the poor as benevolence on the part of the rich. Rather, the rich have a moral obligation to the poor-justice requires that the rich treat the poor in a certain way.
All the best,
Ben
Ken Taylor’s reasoning is fallacious and somewhat naive .
There is no rational or theological connection between giving someone spare change and honouring human dignity. There is a theological connection between an act of charity and honouring human dignity, but an act of charity can be anything.
If the thinking is that ‘honouring human dignity’ is achieved through an act of charity, giving someone something that can’t do them harm, such as food or clothing, perhaps a blanket (rather than money) is as much an act of honouring human dignity as giving them money, perhaps more so because it directly meets their needs. The only thing giving them money does is honour their free-will, thus it gives them power over human choice, which we all know is faulty and defective
Jesus said ‘Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and give to God that which is God’s’. I disagree with Taylor’s view that what is done with the money is of no consequence. If someone takes the money and purchases drugs then ODs, under even faulty human standards that person an accessory to the victim’s harm because the gift of money what facilitated it in the first place.
That the money is a secondary matter (and it is! … secondary to the act of charity itself), does not mean that it is inconsequential. This false equivocation is his error in thinking.
Mike:
There shouldn’t be a dichotomy between giving someone the Gospel and honoring their dignity as a human. Who is to say that the conversation doesn’t include something about the Gospel? Who is to say that repetitive charity does not open the heart of someone to the Gospel? To be purely utilitarian, i.e., to do the charity if and only if it allows for verbal Gospel proclamation seems a bit shortsighted to me. What if a person has been hurt by Christians and then Christian after Christian attempts to bait-and-switch them with a meal in exchange for hearing a sermon? These sort of actions could harden the heart of a hurting person, and it may be that Gospel proclamation can be hindered by our unwillingness to show, by our actions, that a human is worth something whether or not they listen to us, whether or not they are addicted, whether or not they seem to care about their own future.
It seems contradictory to me to tell someone God loves them enough to freely offer them grace because of the faithfulness of Jesus to then tell them that we cannot show them grace in something as small as looking them in the eye, talking to them, acknowledging their humanity.
Ben:
Thanks for pointing that out!
Andrew:
Taylor isn’t saying “of no consequence,” but rather than in the end we cannot control someone’s decision. As I stated in my comment to Abram the money is hardly the thing that perpetuates addiction. Addiction is far more severe that we realize if we think our dollar or two will enable or prevent them from buying drugs. As I stated, addicts will find a way. Hopelessness will find a way to engage the addiction. Our act of acknowledging a human as a human, showing love, providing dignity to someone who is not an animal but as human as you or I, that warmth may be the beginning of hope. If a hopeless person is shown over and over that their existence is not important, or they are demanded to become better people before receiving love and care, then hopelessness is likely to control them indefinitely.
Thanks for this, Brian. This is something I wrestle with as well, but I too like Taylor’s approach. It’s worth pursuing.
Great chance to think through some important issues. The Second Great Commandment of Lev 19:17-18 demands that we rebuke a sinner, not that we enable their sin and mask that as unconditional love, for it is rally hate. If the person is not a fellow Christian, then we are not commanded to rebuke their sin, nor are we commanded to assist them with economic koinonia. In such a case, the divine plan is to let them come beg at the Church, not to distribute resources willy-nilly and call that honouring the imago Dei.
James:
Your comment makes Jesus’ parable about the Good Samaritan very, very hard to understand. In fact, it seems to reinforce exactly what Jesus critiqued. If our neighbor is merely a member of our own tribe, then why did Jesus tell a story where the neighbor was part of a rival people? If we are to serve Christians only, then the Church is merely another group helping their own while neglecting others.
Similarly, it makes jest of Paul’s words in Galatians 6:10. It is one thing to think our primary responsibility is toward those right next to us, with whom we live in community, which Paul seems to say, but what you say challenges his statement that we should do good to all people.
Never mind, I see that you’ve had this discussion with Ben Witherington already (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2013/05/13/the-love-commandment-in-the-new-testament-part-one/). I don’t have anything to add to what he has said to you already.
It’s a question I’ve often wondered about.
Once a gentleman asked me for some cash and he had a silly, prepared story. My daughter said, “dad, if you’re going to give every homeless person in Nashville cash based on these stories, you’ll be broke”.
I knew he was lying, but, I felt like giving the guy the cash for whatever reason. Later, I told my daughter that just his feeling he had to lie to make a little cash bothered me for him, the loss of his dignity, etc.
There have been other times when I just didn’t get that sense for a person. I don’t know if that’s the spirit leading or not.
I have to say I like the approach of the “showing them respect” thing. In Nashville, the rescue ministry there helps these folks get back on their feet and when you give to them and tell them you love them and will pray for them, most of them light up like light bulbs, I’ve seen it and it’s a joy to see.
Patrick:
In San Francisco it can be very difficult, because there are professionals who are seen getting in their cars and leaving after making some money pretending to have run out of gas, or to be homeless, and it is unfair to those who really have struggled. Once, I called out a person in Union Square for this very thing after seeing him do it multiple days in a row. He yelled at me and told me I should try living in San Francisco. I had to tell him that I did live there.
In retrospect, while his deception is wrong, it does make me wonder what drives people to that place. It is hard to show them respect, especially when I know they are taking away from those who have true needs. Yet, I must remind myself, they are human too and they are worthy of dignity.
I don’t want to minimize the challenges associated with helping people in these situations. I do want to remind myself that they are human and sometimes it is important to begin with this realization.
I love this post. its something I’ve wrestled with and eventually came to the same conclusion, that money is just a thing while honoring the image of God is much more. Plus, by saying “what if they ____” is putting my expectations on top of their story.
Then Dorothy Day wrecked my world by saying “The gospel forever eliminates our right to distinguish between the deserving and undeserving poor”.
Matthew 5:42/Luke 6:30, anyone? It doesn’t appear that Jesus puts any limitations/qualifiers on this command. Thus Ken Taylor’s response is inherently scriptural, as far as the teachings of Jesus are concerned.
That Dorthy Day quote is great!
Joshua:
Agreed.
Brian, I appreciate your response to mine. My main point is that obedience to what the Holy Spirit is telling you right then and their should be your primary focus, with obedience being your motivation. I do not mean to negate the actions you discuss taking. Obedience to the Lord may well afford someone their dignity, but it also might not. A utilitarian approach may be in obedience to the Lord in one situation, but may miss the mark in another. It really depends on what God is trying to do through you in that situation. Based on your response, we may not be disagreeing.
Mike:
I agree that we should rely on the Spirit, but we can be fallible followers as well. In my estimation one way to make sure that our hearts are open to the Spirit’s guidance is to become familiar with the teachings of Jesus and the narrative of Scripture. By example, I may want to understand someone, but if I don’t know there language it will be difficult. Might I propose that the Spirit speaks the language of Christ and the language of Scripture? When I see a human fighting addiction, poverty, and so forth it may be harder to hear the Spirit if I don’t know the language of God’s love for the whole world (e.g., Jn 3:16) or God’s decision to make humans as his image bearers (Gen. 1:26-27) or that my faith is made real through actions (e.g., Jam. 2:14-26). Without these reminders it may be too easy for me to confuse my own selfish inclinations with the Spirit’s voice. But if I know these things about God, God’s love, and God’s relationship to all people, then I have something by which to test my thoughts to see if I am hearing the Spirit or ignoring the Spirit.
Charity, if thunk about too much, becomes difficult to comprehend. I don’t think that was His original intention. God gave us life — the greatest charity of all — and we squander it, yet He continues to give.
I’ll offer this…
2 Kings 5.17-19: ‘And Naaman said, “If not, please let your servant at least be given two mules’ load of earth; for your servant will no more offer burnt offering nor will he sacrifice to other gods, but to the LORD. In this matter may the LORD pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leans on my hand and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon your servant in this matter.” And he said to him, “Go in peace.” So he departed from him some distance.’
Brian,
My wife had an uncle who actually did what Eddie Murphy did in “Changing Places”. He would appear to be legless on a pallet at the shopping mall. His sister caught him one day and I won’t repeat what she said, but, it was in front of lots of folks and ruined his ruse.
I agree that we can confuse our flesh with the guidance of the Spirit. But there is equal danger of dismissing the Spirit’s guidance by treating every situation the same. This doesn’t mean to dismiss logic when our impulses seem absurd or off key, but it might just be that God wants to do something that seems absurd or off key. A word of knowledge from the Holy Spirit could make all the difference.
Brian,
Consider Proverbs 10:3, which says, “The Lord will not let the godly go hungry, but He refuses to satisfy the craving of the wicked.”
Just sayin’…
Let’s not ignore the genre of proverb! Many misguided ideas are derived from confusion a proverb for a promise or a contextless, universal truth, especially an ancient proverb informing an ancient people.
My first response above cited Luke 16, which illustrates the applicability of Proverbs 10:3, even in the next life; the godly Lazarus was comforted at Abraham’s Bosom, while the wicked rich man’s thirst was never to be quenched.
But as applied to beggars, are you seriously saying that a beggar who happens to be wicked (assuming few are) should be given your spare change, even if the Holy Spirit gives you the discernment to know that he is wicked? And that you should make sure to look the beggar in the eye to respect the wicked man’s dignity? Because you cannot know if it’s really the Holy Spirit talking telling you he’s wicked? And even if it is the Holy Spirit, the scripture you have for guiding your obedience is too antiquated to test the Spirit’s voice anyway?
Brian, recognition of God inspired actions blesses all and is a prayer of praise that draws closer to Him. Mark 12:43-44, Luke 21:2-4
Mike and Bob:
Absolutely! Jesus said (Mt. 5:44-45) that we should love our enemies, bless them that curse us, do good to those who hate us, pray for those who spitefully use us. Is this not doing good to those who commit wicked actions?! Jesus commanded this so that we might be like God the Father who gives sun and rain to the just and the unjust. If God gives good things to the good and the wicked, and we are to be like God, then we must give good things to all people. That is why Paul said to do good to all people (Gal. 6:10), not just those we perceive to be good people.
In addition, it is judgmental (to say the least) to assume that someone with an addiction, or someone who is financially impoverished, is wicked. To say this is to assume that our sins are less than their sins. We do not know how they got to the point in life where we found them. Some people are addicted out of the womb because of their mother’s addictions. Some people come from homes and neighborhood where the influences are overwhelming. If you think the Spirit is telling you to withhold good things from people because you can look them in the eye and see that they are wicked, then I don’t think the spirit you are hearing speak is the Spirit at all.
The mentality that you present is one rebuked by Jesus when he challenged the cause-and-effect universe of blessing-and-curse morality in Luke 13:1-8. He denied the idea that those killed by Pilate or those who were killed when the tower collapsed on them were more sinful than those present. In fact, when he heard this he used it as an opportunity to challenge them to repent, to give up their ways, to realize that they too could very well find disaster. This story is worth taking to heart. We hardly have the right to play judge. That is God’s role, not ours. We could face them same terrible end as other people. We could hit the same rock bottom as other people.
We must be careful not to ignore those stories in Scripture that challenge the cause-and-effect universe we sometimes embrace. Like the Book of Job, where Job did nothing wicked, but his life collapsed before him. When we judge are poor, hurting person we are like Job’s friends and when we say the Spirit told us to behave as Job’s friends we lie to ourselves, for how would the Spirit tell us to behave like Job’s friends? Instead, we should be like James who said (2:12-13), “Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” Our judgement without mercy makes us like Job’s friends and the Spirit would not lead us to be like that. Furthermore, James rebukes those who judge on the basis of someone’s wealth or lack thereof (2:5-6a), “Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have dishonored the poor.” We should not say that the Spirit would tell us to do such things.
Finally, oddly enough, it is the poor beggar in Luke 16 who is in Paradise and the wicked person of wealth who refused to help the poor who is in Hades. If this parable tells us anything it is that if we think we cannot ignore the poor, judge the poor, predetermine the worth and status of the poor, then we are not hearing the Spirit and we are not on God’s side.
Brian said “In addition, it is judgmental (to say the least) to assume that someone with an addiction, or someone who is financially impoverished, is wicked.“.
Yes and what’s the problem? We are called to judge righteously “Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.” [Pro 31:9], also [1 Thess 5:21][1 Cor 14:29][ John 7:24] “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgement”.
So long as our judgement is righteous, and right, there’s nothing wrong with being judgemental. It is only when we judge as hypocrites there’s a problem.
With that said Brian do you deny someone with an addiction, or someone who is financially impoverished is wicked? Isn’t the biblical message that we are all wicked, in need of a saviour? If so addicts and the financially impoverished are wicked like the rest of us …
We should be careful that we don’t misuse the words here. Sure, judgement (observing, discerning) is allowable. I speak of the judgment condemned by Christ, one where a person is disregarded as less than others, as if we can stand above them predetermining their potential and claiming to know why they are in the situation life has handed them. There is a difference and you know words have polysemy.
Likewise, sure, we can claim that in some sense all people are evil. In the same sense, all people have the image of God. So the question remains: what gives you the right to judge (and lest it become too confusing for you, the second sort of judgement I explained) people who are in a suffering condition?
Ok, fair point, but I would see Christ’s condemnation of judgement as being that hypocritical judgement. (Nice word polysemy, I had to look it up). The question does remain what gives me the right to judge people who are in a suffering condition?
Two answers, first nothing gives me the right to judge as hypocrite judges, but Jesus’ own word commands I not only judge all things but do so with a level balance. So I’m not arguing that we judge as hypocrites (you and I agree), however I am commanded to otherwise discern all things.
With respect to judging those in a suffering condition? Who exactly do you think are in this condition? As a sinful man repellent to God, I can think of no greater suffering condition than that! I have know some in great poverty, blessed by the Lord. So poverty does not define ‘suffering condition’. I would agree addiction is clearly ‘suffering condition’ but addiction is the result of fallen choices, in otherwords sin. Both my father and my brother were/are addicts (alchohol/drugs), are you saying I am not not see their addiction as a function of sin?
You and I agree that some question remains, but I think we approach it differently. The question I think remains is “Do we only attend to the symptom or do we attend to the cause?” I don’t differentiate between states of fallenness given that it doesn’t appear God does.
Would you not agree that the best way to realize Imago Dei in a fallen man is to enable that man to reflect Christ?
Of course, there is no disagreement that we should present the Gospel to all people and that we should offer to them the story of Jesus Christ. I haven’t disagreed with that point, nor do I disagree that we shouldn’t be satisfied with pulling the weed from the soil if the root is left in the ground. I hope that is clear. Yet, I think that often we assume that we must strong-arm people into accepting the Gospel (and let us remember, a starving person may agree to anything for food in the moment, that doesn’t mean we’ve done right by them) when sometimes it takes time and sometimes we are not alone in our actions.
Let us propose that a person is near giving up on life. Suicide is on their mind. Thousands of people pass them, but one of us stops, acknowledges they exists, gives them some spare change, a smile, and a look in the eye. Say that little action is used by the Spirit to keep them going one more day and somewhere down the road they come across a Christian serving food in a park near where they sleep and that day their hearts are more open, and they are alive, and they embrace the Gospel. We may not have converted them when we smiled, looked them in the eye, gave them spare change, and went our way, but we may have been used by the Spirit and we do not know the mysterious ways in which the Spirit may use our small deed to soften the heart of hurting people.
Yes, I agree delivery of the Gospel is problematic. Although evangelism should never strong-arm anyone, and though I recognize some try, still I believe that evangelism inevitably leads to conflict (as the world hates its message) so ultimately conflict avoidance cannot factor into our thinking, even if we try our best to perfect our methods.
With respect to your example, I would agree with you, that whether or not that person is contemplating death, whether or not they are suicidal, or rich driving an Audi R8, or a Democrat, or a Republican, or something else – we are to look for and see Imago Dei in them, with the same servant heart Jesus himself exhibited, treating others with dignity and respect.
I agree with you that we are called to treat people as in your example, even if it is not our actions, our treatment of the other that benefits this poor person, instead it is an act of the Spirit. That standard of treatment is basic decency, compelled by the Gospel, and a consequent of not being hypocrites.
Nevertheless, ‘Imago Dei’ is the image of God, and the image of God is without spot or blemish, not an addict or a prostitute; so even even if we are to serve them in their fallen state, as Christ served us in our fallen state, it would be a mistake and a disservice to that person to affix human value to ‘who they are, as they are’, rather than ‘who they are in Christ’, for though Christ served us in our fallen state, he did so by instructing us to ‘sin no more’, living this example, and ultimately by dying on the Cross thus defeating sin and death.
Addressing our standing with God was Christ’s chief aim (and no I’m not suggesting you deny this), so I believe ours should also be.
By saying not to judge, you invoked Matthew 7:1-2, which says, ““Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” But that is not the entire passage. He is not warning against judging per se, but against judging in hypocrisy. As He goes on to say, “3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?” So if you have a plank in your eye, and if it has not been removed, then everything you say is correct. While the plank remains, you cannot judge the beggar, and you should simply be kind to every beggar you meet. And if that means giving your change and looking them in the eye when you do it, then so be it.
But Jesus did not stop with verse 4. He took a left turn, which I believe many Christians miss. He tells the hypocrite to whom He speaks the condition under which we **can** (and should) judge. “5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
In other words, stop being a hypocrite. Admit your faults and repent. Then judge clearly. Never does Christ say that we are **never** to judge. Never does He say that our planks are unremovable. No, He tells us to remove that plank so that we can see clearly. To accent the point, He even gives us an example of the kind of judging we should in fact exercise once our vision has been cleared. “6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”
One other stumbling block I have seen with this passage, is in verse 5, where He speaks of judging a brother. Jesus even says in Matthew 12:50 that our brothers are those who do the Father’s will. Paul even tells us how to judge to a brother in Christ, and so a common refrain in the church is that we can judge other Christians Biblically, but not unbelievers. But look again at verse 6. He is not speaking of believers at this point, who have been made holy by His blood, but to unholy people who have not repented. Are verses 5 and 6 contradicting each other? Not at all.
Notice what verse 5 is saying. If you remove the plank from your own eye, not only will you see clearly enough to judge, but you will in fact be able to help remove the speck from the eye of someone who is doing God’s will… let alone judge someone who is not in God’s will. Verse 5 is not telling us the full scope of what we can do with our clear judgement, but describing just how clearly He wants us to see. As for judging someone unholy, in this case a beggar, we are not supposed to throw pearls to swine. Of course, the only way we can make such judgement is through the Holy Spirit, and only if He first helps us remove the plank from our eye. Are you saying He cannot? According to Jesus, it can be removed.
You say not to judge. Christ says to judge, but clearly. Such clarity only comes from removing the plank from our own eye. And all I was ever trying to say is that through the Holy Spirit (and only as a result of Christ’s sacrifice), we can in fact have that plank removed. Through the Holy Spirit, we can see clearly enough to know who to give to and who not to.
<>
By saying not to judge, you invoked Matthew 7:1-2, which says, ““Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” But that is not the entire passage. He is not warning against judging per se, but against judging in hypocrisy. As He goes on to say, “3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?” So if you have a plank in your eye, and if it has not been removed, then everything you say is correct. While the plank remains, you cannot judge the beggar, and you should simply be kind to every beggar you meet. And if that means giving your change and looking them in the eye when you do it, then so be it.
But Jesus did not stop with verse 4. He took a left turn, which I believe many Christians miss. He tells the hypocrite to whom He speaks the condition under which we **can** (and should) judge. “5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
In other words, stop being a hypocrite. Admit your faults and repent. Then judge clearly. Never does Christ say that we are **never** to judge. Never does He say that our planks are unremovable. No, He tells us to remove that plank so that we can see clearly. To accent the point, He even gives us an example of the kind of judging we should in fact exercise once our vision has been cleared. “6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”
One stumbling block I have seen with this interpretation is in verse 5, where Jesus speaks of judging a brother. Jesus even says in Matthew 12:50 that our brothers are those who do the Father’s will. Paul even tells us how to judge to a brother in Christ, and so a common conclusion in the church is that we can judge other Christians Biblically, but we cannot judge unbelievers. But look again at verse 6. Jesus is not speaking of judging believers (those who have been made holy by His blood), but to unholy people who have not repented. Are verses 5 and 6 contradicting each other? Not at all…
Notice what verse 5 is saying. If you remove the plank from your own eye, not only will you see clearly enough to judge, but you will in fact be able to help remove the speck from the eye of someone who is doing God’s will. But verse 5 is not telling us the full scope of what we can do with our clear judgement, just describing how clearly He wants us to see. As for judging someone unholy, in this case a beggar, we are not supposed to throw pearls to swine. Of course, the only way we can make such judgement is through the Holy Spirit, and only if He first helps us remove the plank from our eye. Are you saying He cannot remove that plank? According to Jesus, it can be removed, and should be.
To summarize: You say not to judge. Christ says to judge, but clearly. Such clarity only comes from removing the plank from our own eye. And all I was ever trying to say is that through the Holy Spirit (and only as a result of Christ’s sacrifice), we can in fact have that plank removed. Through the Holy Spirit, we can see clearly enough to know who to give to and who not to.
Argh…
Brian, I posted, then reposted with a correction because my last three paragraphs had some unfortunate mis-wordings. I tried to put such a comment in brackets atop my correction, but they were interpreted as an HTML tag. Would you please remove the first version? I apologize for the confusion!!
Speaking of removing planks…
Judgment is presumption. The witness of human performance of judgment is inadequacy. History is the truth regarding human governments; they have all failed. Jhn 8:7, Rom 3.
Despite the record humans are ready to sit for God in judgment. Plainly, humans are inadequate without knowledge of the entirety. Presumptive judgment despite awareness of this insufficiency is rebellion. The qualifier is delegated authority that is acknowledged as such. This judgment is not applied chronically but only as circumscribed by the delegator.
The commandment against killing is undergirded by the presence of God in every human being. The desire to judge is a murderous precursor. We now come back to non violence.
The solution is to promote a better way.
1Cr 15:56, Rom 3:19, Gal 5:18
There is no purpose for judgment without choice.
Eze 3:17-21
Judgment is critical, the Spirit is life. We who are led by the Spirit offer the same in love. Behavior can be nullified through imposed constraint for a time.
In some their commitment to Jesus occurs in a moment, others are convinced through proofs before they are born again and know the Holy Spirit. Birth initiates being that becomes an expression of the heart, the choices of that life. Sanctification, a separation of that which is holy occurs through the lifespan; it is not injected whole rather it is an enablement, the forgiveness and remission of sin through Jesus to become.