Gilbert Keith:
The problem with this is that you no sooner judge the behavior, even in general and abstract terms, but someone who is engaged in the behavior see that it applies to himself and attacks you for being judgmental.
Right, and here I think strategy and “knowing the ways of the world” can come into play to reduce that. If the correction is truly done in good conscience, then this problem is really one of the receiver, not the giver, of the correction.
The related problem I see is that when we do judge behavior (and I do not exclude myself from this weakness) then we attach “bad” baggage to the person, and in our hearts we really have convicted them. Therefore, we fool ourselves into thinking it is a fraternal correction, but there’s a little voice inside of us, maybe a bit like the pharisee and tax collector, that just can’t seem to help dragging out that sinful human nature and adding at least just a “tinge” of condescention. This is immediately picked up by the hypersensitive sinner. Maybe it isn’t so much that we are not to judge, but we are not to judge ourselves better – that even in their bad behavior you do not consider them “lesser” than you.
Isn’t that why so many gay people attack the Church even when the Church has not personally attacked them but has attacked their behavior? The same goes for the pro-abortion advocates, pro-euthanasia proponents, etc.
That may be part of the reason, but on these very hot issues I’ve seen so much hatred on both sides it’s almost hard to tell which ones are which. I’ve actually been an elected pro-life Republican, and I have worked on racism projects with Democrats, appointed by a Democrat city council member. There are good people on both sides, but there are angry, nasty, incredibly narrow minded people on both sides, too, so I’m not quite ready to conclude that “the Church” has not essentially attacked them, or at least members of the Church.
That reminds me again of a philosopher who said something to the effect, “if you’re going to do evil, do it for purely selfish motives, and people understand that. Don’t do it in the name of God because that turns men into monsters.”
I would have more respect for a person who told a gay person straight (oops I mean “directly”
) to his face, “I personally think your behavior is disgusting, I don’t think you should be married, and I’m going to vote against you, and furthermore I wish you’d quit breathing the same air I do” than a person who thinks those exact things, but pulls the God card on them with, “I am Catholic and according to my religion, you are scum and you are going to hell for what you do. You are causing problems for the whole society. Just you wait; God will punish you sooner or later. I’m not judging you, I’m just warning you.”
Yeah, right. That isn’t the Church’s fault necessarily, but they do take the rap for what we do in her name and I don’t think anybody can deny there is plenty of condemnation against gays in the name of God from many individuals both famous and not, of all Christian denominations.
Personally the idea of gay behavior makes me gag, but so does changing a baby’s diaper. The fact that it makes me gag gives me no right to “add on” condemnation and threats in the name of God to those I am entitled to speak about. I’m not condemning those who do it; the ones I’ve seen are perfectly convinced they are doing God’s work and some would just as soon see AIDS spread to all gays, and feel personal satisfaction that they got their just reward.
Was Paul having a bad hair day? I’m not so sure about that. Who are we to judge? I think that Paul was very conformed to Jesus, a lot more than most of us. When he spoke in the manner cited above, he was speaking in a different context than Jesus spoke. Jesus associated with thieves and such because he came to save all of us and was himself immune to any corrupting influence they might have on him. Not so, from Paul’s point of view. None of us is a Jesus, and any of us could be corrupted by being a fellow traveler with thieves and murderers.
I think you make some good points. I’m not quite there with you on Christ’s immunity to corruption, because if he “used” that power, I wonder whether it would interfere with the whole concept of His becoming True Man.
Maybe Paul was warning against being complacent about hypocrites who pretend to be my friend but are themselves evildoers. I dunno. This thing has some serious ramifications I’m pretty sure, but I’m also pretty sure I don’t yet know them.
Alan
