Whose game is it anyway?
Since we're all evangelicals could we discuss what the bible has to say about being judgemental?
"We support those Bishops who have said that under the present arrangements they cannot attend the Lambeth Conference. We invite those English dioceses who are twinned with dioceses and provinces overseas to consult with their companion dioceses about whether to attend the Lambeth Conference. We prayerfully counsel Church of England bishops to consider whether in the light of TEC′s response they may wish to absent themselves."
Or we could just take our ball and go play someplace else instead...
lots of the time its that evangelicals feel it necessary to help their brothers and sisters to not wander from the faith. but they aren't always amazing at expressing that in the most loving terms, even when actually, it is driven out of deeply loving motives (see James 4:19-20). evangelicals stand up for sound doctrine (as Paul instructs Timothy to do in 2 Tim 4:1-4 etc) and as Paul himself does with Peter over doctrinal matters(Galatians 2:11-14). why does Paul do that: its for the good of the church. the motivation of evangelicals is just the same. interestingly, in the church times the other week, a survey had been carried out on why people left church. one of them was the liberalisation of the church. liberal churches die. (rev 2:1-7)
on judgementalism, i think the majority of the examples of jesus not loving the sinner are centred on those who haven't yet come to faith. evangelicals tend to assume (quite rightly) that delegates to the lambeth conference are all christians, and so want to live out lives of worship in response to God's salvation. and so to rebuke, train and correct using the bible (see 2 Tim 3:16) is probably the most loving thing we could possibly do. it can seem judgemental, but nothing compared to Jesus high moral standards. (e.g. Matt 5-8).
you might be thinking here 'we're under grace not under the law.' and you should be. you're right on. but the law shows us our sin, leads us to repentance. God using his word, the bible, to convict us is a work of the Holy Spirit (see John 15:4-15) and helps us in becoming more Christlike.
but rebuking has to be done in a way that acknowledges that we're all, including rebuker and rebukee total sinful messes. often we're not very good at making that clear.
given the situation in the moment loving rebuke is very necessary. the trouble is that sinful humans don't really like that. thats why there's division.
and schism and 'boycott' is not the way foward. we do need to keep coming, in great humility, acknowledging the planks in our eyes to hear what God has already said in the Bible. and we need to keep helping others who call themselves christians to do that.
All good points. You've got me thinking about rebuking from a leadership point of view now - when is it right to rebuke? How to do it in love rather than out of some sense of doctrinal honour or something?
In response to Jesus' comments about judging only being for non-believers, I'd say that Matthew 7:1-7 seems to apply fairly generally to everyone and everything. The use of brothers would apply to fellow Jews I suppose and so would be fairly relevant to our brothers within the church - I was tempted to write our "brothers in Christ".
Of course there is Matt 18:15-17, but I would want to draw attention to two little words in there: "If a brother sins against you..." - when we interpret its meaning.
Also, the bit in Matt 7 about planks and specks seems to be fairly relevant.
I also really like what Jude has to say about the angel Michael not bringing a "slanderous accusation" to the devil, but rather saying "the Lord rebuke you".
I don't know - all I do know is that God loves the church, and that disunity and squabbling and taking sides doesn't help anyone.
Finally the word translated "rebuke" in 2 Tim 4, epitimao, has its origin in the Greek "timao" which is usually translated "honour" - what a thought: to rebuke in a way that brings you honour, or brings honour to the other person.
I guess in hindsight my post actually was pretty judgemental in itself (oh the irony). So I'm sorry about that. Just really got me angry when I read that - probably not a "righteous anger" either.
Thanks so much for the comment, its about time I had to answer to someone... ;-)
sorry. typo. taking a fairly broad sweep of the gospels, jesus shows love and compassion to sinful people throughout his ministry. (alabaster jars etc) but has very little time for religious hypocrasy. hope that clarifies what i was getting at.
get you getting your greek NT out! in context: at 2 Tim 4:2: "...reprove, rebuke and exhort, with complete patience and teaching." (ESV). alot easier to do one half than the other.
schism is a disaster. if luther could persuaded the catholics to internally reform that would have been splendid. as necessary as it was, it set a horrible precedent. generally, we should stay in till we get kicked out. it takes guts.
Paul on his rebuking of the Corinthian churches: 2 Cor 7:8-9. He's gutted he's got to do it. Perhaps thats how we should feel? When we feel like that maybe its right?
Although I think the bible does rebuking far far better than we can. (2 Tim 3:16, Hebrews 4:12). As long as leaders, we stay biblical, maybe we shouldn't have to do too much of our own rebuking as its God himself doing the rebuking through his word. and it lets someone without a plank in their eye do the rebuking.