Being a poor student I can perhaps escape most of the financial aspects of hypocrisy, however I know to my shame I too often take the personal moral high ground over others in my thoughts and actions, wittingly or unwittingly seeking to furnish my own interests. Reading the letter to the Romans this week has thankfully humbled me in this...
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things. Now we know that God's judgement against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgement on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgement? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgement will be revealed.
Romans chapter 2 verses 1-5
4 comments:
"I find it saddening that people and such damning in their judgements of others, yet hesitant to evaluate or be accountable for their own actions."
I think it's useful to draw the parallel between expenses and the average celebrity affair. People condemn celebrities for having affairs and politicians for fiddling their expenses because they're in the public eye and set a precedent for the rest of the country. They are role models for society and have to stick to the highest standards. Same applies (even moreso) to politicians because they make the laws of the country. Ordinary laypeople don't have this responsibility.
In a way it is good that society condemns such actions because it shows there is still some moral concience in the mind of the nation and that we know fiddling expenses is wrong.
I appreciate that passing judgement is hippocritical for the average person who takes that bit extra on company expenses, but those in the public eye have more responsibility to behave properly. Imagine if the Queen punched someone! If that person was an ambassador we could end up at war!
Politicians were elected and abusing the expenses is abusing the trust of those people that elected them. They run this country and they set it's laws and standards for a largely atheist (well apathetic) nation. If they can't manage their expenses properly then why should anybody else?
If we want to tackle standards in public life then firstly those setting those standards need to be able to abide by them.
"I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior"
1 Timothy 2:1-3
= End of part 1 :) ==>
= Part 2 ==>
I've set out how important it is that this issue doesn't just get dropped, but as for judgement it's a little more tricky. On the one hand we need to be able to determine right from wrong both in ourselves and others and to say honestly "that is wrong" when asked if it's right - how we learn and improve ourselves. Your quote from Romans that we shouldn't judge though is interesting, and I see where it's coming from...
A very interesting blog post and has got me thinking!
To what extent can we judge?
Should we criticise MP's for their actions? - as argued above I reckon so. But then...
Should we condemn them by voting them out at the next election? Does that count as judging?
Should we discuss their actions at all in blog posts and comments? Is that judging?
I did a bit of looking up the commentary on that passage and wonder if it's being slightly more specific in terms of judging one another spiritually rather than materialistically (as with expenses). The passage is aimed at the Jews and the Pharisees in particular and is reminding them that only God can judge if a person is righteous. It does not mention, and I don't see it being compatable with day to day analysis of actions and working out if they're wrong by societies standards and Gods standards (what I call materialistic judgement), because we need to be able to do this to improve and rebuking others lovingly in Christ does involve some form of judgement.
So in conclusion I reckon we can criticise MP's for their actions as being sinful and wrong. We should criticise their actions because they are role models for public life and they are in authority and we must make sure they are not hypocritical "that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness".
Making any reference to them being "saved" or otherwise and bearing a grudge against them or acting not in a loving way is not acceptable.
---
Wow, philosophy day! Thats all reasoning based on while I was writing this and looking stuff up. Feel free to pick holes in it and I look forward to hearing about any errors or points I've missed. In a loving gentle way of course :)
Thanks again for an excellently thought provoking blog post Aaron!
Hey Mark,
Thanks for your reply - it looks like an area you've given a great deal of thought to! I can see what you're saying, and you were right to go back and further investigate the context of the passage in Romans. I'm pretty sure that the passage wasn't originally written into a 21st Century government accountability scandal context!
Reading on in the letter we see more of Pauls argument as it unfolds: in 2:15 he tells us that in judging we're showing that we have an idea of the law ourselves (and thus are not exempt), 2:19-24 that in knowing that law we are accountable to it (can't just point fingers), and 3:10-12 + 3:22-24 that everyone in fact falls short of being good. The idea of making oneself seem better than another by casting a judgement could be likened to mudslinging at the bottom of a pit, the other person gets dirty but neither get any closer to leaving the pit they're stuck in.
The action of not putting ones own wants and desires first (before both God and others) jars so severely with the attitude of British society (something I feel that has been exemplified by the recent expenses saga), in that people think of themselves as the superior moral authority.
Whilst I appreciate the need for wise and honourable leadership, I'm uncertain how if something is deemed wrong it could/should only be applied to those particular individuals.
I can't believe how much delight I can draw from both of your arguments. Good points, well done guys!
Well, from my point of view, though I do not agree with all aspects of Sartre's theory of bad faith, I do have an inclination towards believing that being a good /moral person is the utmost faith of bad faith.
Indeed, the inner anguish of moral uncertainty is the underlying theme of existentialism. I think that most people in the world fall into the trap of believing that by doing good things, they are thus 'morally conscious' and are good people. They however do not realise that they set their standards according to their own, which cannot all be morally correct when passed/compared with respective moral codes those of others. In a biblical point of view, it is written in Matthew 7:3 that 'why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?'.
Whilst it is important not to pass judgment to what other people do or commit, we need to be aware of our own significance in the process throughout life, which may involve a constant re-appraisal of our own and others' ever-changing humanity, and play your own role in the society. Aside from all this, I can certainly understand that taking the burden of personal choices and accountability under all circumstances can be an intimidating proposition to all of us.
Post a Comment