We continue, for this date in our four years review of Christian context, especially as it relates to education, a general theme, related to one’s point of view about Christian interpretation of life context, and specifically the matter of judgment in the mind and context of the world of truth and experience. What did Jesus mean when he made this proposition in the Sermon on the Mount? I have heard many sermons on the Sermon on the Mount, including this passage, and, like so many biblical passages I have heard expounded, there is so much omitted in meeting the questions one might raise on teachings. I sometimes feel a bit of exasperation. This does not mean the speaker or writer is wrong in what is said or written, but too little analysis is given to the passage. Consequently the meaning is not clinched to the mind of congregations so to learn how to function, how to believe, how to determine what the best process or meaning may be. The human tendency is to evaluate in a way that does not address the action, but the actor. The approach to evaluation (a type of judgment) ought to be related to values that relate to the action. Faithful evaluation then is to find the ideal principle, and report an action/thought (parable) in the light of that principle.
We may be troubled by the word judgment. God favored judges in the history of Israel. When Israel chose kings over judges, it was as though God was offended. He had made the people to be free, to be guided by the values of their laws, codified by Moses. The laws were strong before Moses, but he was chosen to cast them for a growing population, a population that needed documents to guarantee uniformity in the understanding of right and wrong. This was clear in the Genesis account, in the Abramic meeting with Melchizedek, and the experiences of the patriarchs. It has always been so. Aristotle is credited with the great theory of Greek rhetoric. He did not initiate it. He examined what the great orators were doing, and presented theory based on the trial and error of those who preceded him. Cicero did the similar thing later in Rome, so adding to Aristotle’s writings. There were wise preservationists. So was Moses. They gave back, in good form, what was given them. Wisdom follows and embellishes creative ideas for good.
While serving as a professor in the state of Washington, I was approached by a federal agency to be a part of a program that would, first, protect the nation (a particular district) in a time of war, and/or to address tragic circumstances caused by large natural disaster. I agreed, and moved along in the assignments, gaining an ever higher respect for the government of my country. If the program were carried out as designed, there would be increased safety for citizens. On one occasion I was asked to evaluate a program. The team met for a full day in a magnificent underground suite of offices. We had all the maps, the electronics, the resources we needed to protect the American people, and provide needed services and materials in the event of foreign attack. We knew the evaluation was real, not simply a designed event. The government had recently sent a product by rail to a storage area. The transit was found out (actually leaked to the press). The nation was in something of an uproar about the matter. Newspapers were critical. The government was excoriated for the transfer of such sensitive and dangerous material. Demonstrators congregated. In my evaluation at the close of the session, I raised the point that the material, we knew well, was as safe as kitchen flour, unless it was united with another compound that made it poisonous and dangerous. I wondered why the agency would permit the frightening story to get out, and why it was not explained to the public. When I was finished with my report, the chairman smiled, congratulated me on my report, and said: We were hoping you would see the matter as you did, and feel we were totally successful in our procedure. I was stunned. He continued: If the American people believed we had such a terrible weapon, and made it public, so would our enemies. The loss of some respect by activists in our own country is more than matched by the fear of the enemy that we have a secret and deadly new weapon. In a far less dramatic way, much of what we do is guided by this or that motive that others know little about. When we make judgments, we are assuming that others have the same values, the same purposes, the same problems, the same motivations that we have. Only God has everything for true evaluation. We are incompetent for it. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020