”Judge Not” is a kind of cliché — and often a weapon we wield when someone says something we disagree with, or makes an incorrect judgment. Meanwhile, we hypocritically are judging them for what they said. We usually aren’t too concerned with the judgment itself. In addition, Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible doesn’t help with this, changing the phrase to “judge not unrighteously”, as if the issue was judging wrong instead of the fact that we’re judging at all.
Should we really not judge?
I think there’s another problem with judging that we’ve passed over. It’s the same problem that happens when we name something — when we name we are reducing the thing, simplifying it to a core set of descriptions. Calling that flying animal a “bird” brings with it a core set of assumptions about the animal (it flys, it has feathers, it lays eggs, etc.), that can not only be wrong (for example, not all birds fly), but also leaves out things about that bird (as a representative of a species or group, and as an individual) that are important for what it is. In a very real sense when we have named something, we are generally no longer curious about it — we don’t need to investigate further.
Judging is similar. We’ve reduced the person or thing or action to one (and it’s usually one) aspect, and eliminated all others. When we call a talk in Church a “bad” talk, we allow ourselves to dismiss its details, to forget it, to mentally say it has no value. Even if the speaker said one thing that was true or good or beautiful, or that would have led os to think of something true or good or beautiful, we have judged it and forgotten it. We have objectified it, reduced it to one thing. In my opinion, this is NOT righteous judgment.
If you have been reading these posts in the past, you will not be surprised when I blame this on our culture, which tends to seek judgment over everything. It labels actions as either “great” or “bad” and tells us to value the “goat”, the best, the most of whatever characteristic it thinks is important that day. It compares, and when it compares, it judges. And, as with almost all judgment, it reduces the person or thing or action to one aspect. That is, it objectifies it.
Is that really useful? Do we want to be objectified that way? Do we want to be reduced to one thing? Can we instead focus on finding useful and nuanced ways of reacting, ways that allow us to expand on what was said and see the complexity of the person or thing, point or purpose, action or expression? Why reduce things when we can change our ways of thinking to something better?
So, how do you participate in Church? Are you engaged in what happens?
In these posts I am trying to suggest that each of us can have better experiences at Church if we take responsibility for our experiences, and if we are open to learning from what happens by pondering it — by thinking about it in many different ways. We can choose to learn and benefit from what happens regardless of whether it fits our perception of what is “good.” Thinking about our reactions and what we understand allows for revelation and for better understanding.
In this vein, I like the statement that President Hugh B. Brown made in a 1969 BYU devotional, President Hugh B. Brown declared that the Church is “not so much concerned with whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox as we are that you shall have thoughts.” We should be carefully considering what we hear at Church, regardless of whether what we heard is right or wrong, orthodox or heterodox.
A lot of our thought depends on how we look at it. It is not different from what many artists figure out—they understand that how you see the world before you is more important than what you see. You might call it ‘active listening’ or shifting perspective. It just means that you see differently. And seeing differently reveals a different world.
In my case, I tend to focus narrowly, thinking about groups of words or sentences, sometimes taking them out of context and thinking about what they say, even if the speaker didn’t intend what I heard. It’s not at all like what we’re taught in school, where the focus is on understanding accurately and completely what the speaker or text says. Its about pulling out useful or inspiring thoughts in spite of what was said.
So, if you aren’t thinking this way, maybe try it next Sunday, or the next time you are in a class or meeting. If you have already thoughts inspired by what happened at church, what are they? How did you react to what happened in Church yesterday? What did you notice? Did you end up thinking differently? Do you think your reactions were what they should be? Were they looking for what God had to tell you? Did your reactions make things better?
This is the latest invitation for reactions to local meetings, continuing a series of weekly posts that started with my post on September 25th about how we receive what happens in Church meetings—sermons, lessons and anything else—and enter a conversation with them, magnifying what was said or adding what we think. In these posts I’m asking us all to think about how we listen and receive what happens at Church. If we only listen for mistakes, or things that bother us, what does that say about us? Is it most important to criticize others? Or to try to change ourselves?
The point here is that no matter how poorly prepared the speaker or teacher is, or no matter how what happens triggers us, or is objectively or doctrinally wrong, we can still find elements in what is said and what happens that inspires and edifies us. Even if church meetings aren’t conducted in a way that reaches us, we can take responsibility and find a way to feel the spirit.
So please, write down reactions and thoughts to what happened in Church. You might keep your own ‘spiritual journal’, or, if you like, you can post your reactions below. I’m adding my own reactions and thoughts as a comment to this post — instead of as a part of this post, because my reactions aren’t any better than anyone else’s.
Let me emphasize that this is NOT a place to criticize what is wrong with church or your fellow congregants. The point is to post what you learned because of what happened at Church or how that led you to think. It’s about the good things we can get out of Church, not the negative things that disturbed or upset us. It doesn’t have to be orthodox, traditional or even on topic.
If you like, make your response in the format, “They said or did this, and I said or thought that.” Even the things you dislike the most can be turned into lessons for what the gospel teaches we should do.
My hope is that these reactions serve as an example of a better way to treat what happens at Church instead of the perennial complaints about speaker or teacher preparation or ability, or complaints that the Church should do things differently.
Leave a Reply