As a follow up to Saturday’s post on the Legalist “Not Me” dance, today I want to quote Jerry Bridges on the problem of Judgmentalism.
Bridges is a well known, and respected author. He’s known for highlighting the role of grace in the Christian’s life. I’ve reviewed his book, Trusting God here previously. One of his most recent books, Respectable Sins, takes aim at the sins that we too easily let slide. Andy Naselli posted some excerpts from the chapter dealing with Judgmentalism, and I’m going to share some of them here, but encourage you to go read Naselli’s full post and then consider picking up a copy of the book for more.
The sin of judgmentalism is one of the most subtle of our “respectable” sins because it is often practiced under the guise of being zealous for what is right…
Example 1: Dress
I grew up in the mid-twentieth century, when people dressed up to go to church. Men wore jackets and ties (usually suits and ties) and women wore dresses. Sometime in the 1970s, men began to show up at church wearing casual pants and open-collar shirts. Many women began to wear pants. For several years, I was judgmental toward them. Didn’t they have any reverence for God? Would they dress so casually if they were going to an audience with the president? That sounded pretty convincing to me.
Only I was wrong. There is nothing in the Bible that tells us what we ought to wear to church. And as for dressing up to meet the president, that’s a cultural thing centered in Washington, DC. If you were invited to meet the president while he is vacationing at his ranch, you would probably show up in blue jeans. Reverence for God, I finally concluded, is not a matter of dress; it’s a matter of the heart. Jesus said that true worshipers are those who worship the Father in spirit and truth (see John 4:23). Now, it’s true that casual dress may reflect a casual attitude toward God, but I cannot discern that. Therefore, I should avoid ascribing an attitude of irreverence based purely on a person’s dress….
…My point here is that it doesn’t matter which side of an issue we are on. It is easy to become judgmental toward anyone whose opinions are different from ours. And then we hide our judgmentalism under the cloak of Christian convictions.
Paul’s response to the situation in Rome [in Romans 14] was, “Stop judging one another regardless of which position you take.” …
I suspect that some of my dearest friends may disagree with some things I’ve said in this chapter. Some do not see the manner of dress in church or the type of music we sing as matters of preference. For them, it is a conviction. I respect their thinking and wouldn’t want to change their convictions at all.
I’d like to be like Paul, who took a similar position regarding the divisive issues in Rome. He did not try to change anyone’s convictions regarding what they ate or the special days they observed. Instead, he said, “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5). Such a statement makes many of us uncomfortable. We don’t like ambiguity in issues of Christian practice. It’s difficult for us to accept that one person’s opinion can be different from ours and both of us be accepted by God. But that is what Paul says in Romans 14. And if we will take Paul seriously and hold our convictions with humility, it will help us avoid the sins of judgmentalism. (pp. 144–48)
I only shared the part about dress, but Naselli includes more on how music and alcohol factor in to this judmentalist problem.
What are your thoughts on this? I, for one, think Bridges nails it on this one. This is indeed a problem, and can be for those of us on both sides of the question in dispute. Rom. 14 and 15 have more to say about this, and we would do well to listen.
Hi Bob, We just finished in our small group study, Bridges–Respectable Sins book. It’s a great study to go through and extremely convicting! I agree that Bridges hits the nail on the head when he talks about all of these sins and gives fine (and convicting) examples of how easy it is for religious people to justify these sins veiled in morality, but not found in Scripture. The bible calls Christians to be good judges, not judgmental and I definitely cross the line more often than I care to admit. It’s only my love of sin that blinds me to whether I’m being a righteous judge or a judgmental hypocrite. Jerry writes for the layman like me. I appreciate that. Thanks Bob! 🙂
I’ve heard good things about the book, too, Kim. Thanks for adding your thoughts here too. Blessings in Christ to you, Bob.
I have read Trusting God, and the Practice of Godliness. Jerry Bridges has some great thoughts in those books. I would agree with Bridges on some of what he says. For instance, I think the concept of “respectable sins” is true. Indeed the hardest sins for me to deal with are my own. “Judgmentalism” as he defines it is indeed a sin. Where I disagree with him is his application of that concept and how he relates it to the issue of dress. If God has nothing to say about dress (clothing, appearance, etc.) then he would be spot on. But the Lord does have somethings to say about clothing, and we need to trust and obey Him regardless of our sentiments.
I appreciate you dropping by, Bill. I agree we need to obey the Lord no matter what and trust Him regardless of our sentiments. But we need to make sure what we are obeying is His clear word, not a possible interpretation of it pushed on us by others. I agree Scripture teaches the importance of preserving a gender distinctness in dress, and that our dress should be appropriate and not too flashy. But the express applications of these principles to today’s styles of clothing from which we have to choose, is not so clear cut and manifest. As we grapple with how to apply Scripture, we will inevitably disagree with one another. And in such a state, we must follow Paul’s teaching in Rom. 14. On the one hand we are not to despise some to the right of us, and we are not to judge those to the left. Both despising and judging are errors. Rather we are to welcome one another, recognizing that to the Lord our Judge we will stand or fall.
I beg to differ, Bob. I think when we look at today’s styles that we can easily know what is pleasing to God. Many, especially in our culture, don’t please God. I do understand where Bridges is coming from. When I was a young Christian the common point that is made with regards to dress standards were and are indeed what he mentioned in his example. Thankfully, our dress standards are based on Scripture rather than cultural mores. And because they are based on Scripture it isn’t just good for church only and it doesn’t change. What we certainly don’t want is to think that we are “something” or “somebody” because of external trappings. We desire true worship, and godliness that begins on the inside, and finds its way to the outside, so that both spirit and body is pleasing to God.
Where does Scripture refer to dresses and skirts for women or shirts and ties (with coats) for men? We have to apply the Bible’s teaching on the topic. My application is that the clothes my wife wears are feminine, even when she wears pants. My application is that a shirt and tie, while nice on some occasions, is not necessary or the only appropriate attire for Sunday services. Scripturally you can’t say these choices are wrong. Instead you have to say my application, based on your assessment of today’s culture, is wrong. But that’s my point. We have to allow lenience for various and different conclusions that still are coming from people aiming to follow the spirit of the Biblical principles we can glean about dress. Are there clothes that I would say are definitely immoral, and send a definite wrong message and are totally inappropriate? Yes, indeed. But my list might be different than yours. That’s where the warning on judgmentalism comes in. I can’t despise you for being too rigid in your application, and neither can you judge me for not coming down hard enough in your opinion. Rom. 14 prevents that.
Bob, the Scriptures talk about clothing. We have Scriptural reasons to call the choices of clothing wrong, and sinful. Rom. 14 is about non-moral issues of meats and holidays (basically, ceremonies). Furthermore, in v.17a it says “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness…” Is our clothing right according to the objective standards of the Bible? Our liberty is liberty to do right, not go against His Word. Duet. 22:5, and other verses shouldn’t be ignored, personal preferences included.
In Dt. 22:5 we have the choices for clothing: 1) robes fitted and designed for men and 2) robes fitted and designed for women. Today, we have a similar corresponding situation. We have 1) pants fitted and designed for men and 2) pants fitted and designed for women. We also have skirts/dresses that culturally and stylistically are reserved for women’s use only. We have some other cultures where skirt-like clothing pieces are reserved for men (i.e. kilts). We also have shirts fitted for men and shirts fitted for women that are very similar except for the tailoring and design. I don’t see how Dt. 22:5 singles out pants as being a male object, when pants weren’t in view in the text itself, and when pants today are not treated as a male object by the culture at large.
Do you mean to say that disobedience to the food laws God prescribed was not a moral issue? There were laws and principles that had to be applied to modern culture there in Rom. 14 and so it is analogous to this situation. And yes, I can say wearing items of clothing is not the kingdom of God, righteousness is.
Bob,
Pants on women came into our culture in the 50’s. It is the fruit of the liberation mindset (a problem with authority and submission). Deut. 22:5 certainly doesn’t have pants in view, in light of the text per se. It does assume that we can and should distinguish garments that pertain to the respective gender.
Paul’s teaching on Rom. 14 is due to some Christians not being aware of the abrogation of the ceremonial aspects of the law. None of us are bound by ceremonies. Clothing doesn’t fall in that “category.”
I am sure we can go on and on about this. Essentially, I disagree with Bridges in his assessment that it is a sin to judge sin as sin. (Sin is the transgression of the law, and that is still true for us today).
Thank you for allowing me to comment and for a fair exchange of ideas. I do apologize for my grammar, syntax, and spelling – I doubt you or any of your readers would take any serious offense to that.
I don’t see any problems with your grammar at all, Bill. Thanks for commenting. I do welcome you here anytime. Obviously sometimes we both speak our peace and will disagree. This is one of those times. But feel free anytime. It helps people from all perspectives to read through debates or exchanges like this and hear opposing views shared in a calm and Christian manner. Thanks again, and God bless.
One additional point I’ll make quick, however. I don’t necessarily argue that in the 50s (or probably earlier in many parts of the country) donning pants was a cultural symbol, or that it was making a point. I don’t think I would have preferred my wife to wear slacks back then. But that is 60 years ago, and time flies. Cultures have changed and the negative baggage carried by those items of clothing when seen on women has almost completely disappeared. Almost no one thinks anything of a woman in pants. And women can wear very modest pants and very immodest dresses. So modesty doesn’t enter in here. I argue that pants has ceased being a male-specific item of clothing in our culture. Now since wearing pants is not violating other timeless principles of Scripture, such as you can wear modest pants, and you can wear feminine pants, then I see no problem with it. It isn’t a rebellious sign, it’s not perceived as a rebellious sign, it’s a moot point. Now if our culture continued to develop and change and eventually we decided that it was normal for women to go around topless, and that was an acceptable thing culturally, obviously I would not say such a clothing choice (as in no top), was a moot point and harmless. I’ve gone on record decrying bikinis too, as extremely immodest and not befitting Christians to wear in public.
So it boils down to how I apply my reading of culture to Scripture, and how you do that with yours. No matter how you dice it, you are taking a step or two away from Scripture into a specific application, and you may well be wrong in your application, just as I may be in mine. That being said, neither of us are directly disobeying Scripture (intentionally), and so I can’t judge you or despise you, and you shouldn’t do that to me.
I remember a few years ago when a fellow IFB church separated from our IFB church because we allowed women to wear shoes with ‘nude toes’. The Bible forbid this according to them, whereas we taught that the Bible standard was a dress/skirt down below the calf. They thought we were being libertine and we thought they were legalist.
I’m sure there were groups to the left of us that would consider us legalist and against whom we would accuse of being libertine. Everyone sees their self as having the perfect Biblical understanding, so everyone to either the left or right is wrong. We tend to judge others by their actions and ourselves by our motives. We are all self deceived in the way we judge ourselves, so we should have at least some charity for our brothers.
Bob – huge thanks for bringing Bridges’ Respectable Sins back to my memory so I could add it to my Half.com wishlist. He writes so clearly, practically and personally. You can help but be drawn in.
have a grace filled weekend, brother
Check out the hot styles 1n 1775:
http://corsicanadailysun.com/news/x316467827/Hot-looks-for-1775
Please note in the article: “Women of that century didn’t wear underwear, but only a shift, which was a long undergown that was also their nightwear.”
Scandalous! Simply Scandalous.
Well, you also have: “women of that day only bathed every few weeks and didn’t launder their clothes as often as modern women do.” This just shows how much culture changes over the years. Not to say there are not activities that are culturally appropriate which are nevertheless Biblically immoral, or that cross clear boundaries. But we can’t stand outside of culture and make binding judgments, we are conditioned by our own culture. We must seek to apply Scripture to our culture and judge it.