Judge Not

A sermon by the Rev. Daniel Charles Davis.

for the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Winston-Salem

October 2, 2005

The reading from the Chalice Lighting this morning was Matthew 7:1: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” (KJV) A similar saying is found in Luke 6:37: “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged.” It continues: “Condemn not , and ye shall not be condemned: forgive and you shall be forgiven.” (KJV)

I wish this would be a verse that Christians would take to heart. It is much more inclusive than John 3:16, which states – rather than seeing posters that say “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son – that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” (KJV)

This verse contains a veiled threat: If you do not believe, you will perish. This threat is what often passes for Christianity. Instead of encouraging forgiveness, it condemns all non-believers.

Any of you who have watched a football game have seen the guy holding up John 3:16 in the end zone. When a place kicker lines up for a field goal, the sign is there. As if there is not enough pressure in the situation, the kicker is asked to consider his soul.

Just once I would like to see Luke 6:37 in the end zone. If the kicker missed the field goal, his forgiveness would be assured. Then I realize that if taken too literally, the referee would be unable to make a judgment. He could not declare the kick good or no good. He could not cross and wave his arms as if casting a sinner into hell, nor could he raise his hands heavenward in victorious affirmation.

A recent court nominee said a judge is like an umpire in that he calls balls and strikes but does not determine the strike zone. But any ballplayer knows that different umpires have different interpretations of the strike zone. A hitter or pitcher can adjust if they discover that the umpire has a liberal or conservative interpretation of what the strike zone is. What cannot be tolerated is if the umpire is arbitrary and inconsistent, changing the rules depending on how much he likes the batter.

All of us in our lives need to make judgments. It is impossible to judge not.

In Matthew, Jesus recognizes this fact, for he continues to describe the standard by which judgments are made: “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged.” (RSV)

This is a real tempering of judgment, for we must always judge with compassion as if we are judging ourselves – for we really are.

Think of the behaviors you most dislike in your children. Many of them are probably what you most dislike about yourself. No parent wants their children to go where they went wrong. On the other hand, when we hear of a horrible crime in the news, we get real angry, as if to prove to ourselves that we are nothing like the accused. We may even call the accused a monster in an attempt to avoid the fact of our common humanity.

To judge as we would want to be judged puts a measure of compassion in our judgments. UUs live with a myth that we are non-judgmental, when in fact we are very judgmental. The belief that we are unbiased blinds us to our real biases. Only when we admit we are making judgments can we monitor how we make choices. Are our judgments based on reason, ore are we prejudging a situation? Are we prejudiced?

During the recent Senate hearings, Chief Justice Roberts was circumspect in revealing his position on specific issues. Was he hiding something, or was he maintaining judicial neutrality? Your answer to that question probably reflects your bias going into the hearing.

John Roberts is the 17th Supreme Court Chief Justice in the history of this land. That is less than half the number of presidents we have had, yet many of us find it hard to name more than five chief justices.

The Supreme Court has the final say on the law of the land.

In my 8th grade civics class I was taught about the Constitution and the three branches of government: The legislature makes the laws, the executive enforces the law, and the courts interpret the law.

The legislature and president are democracy in action. They make and execute laws. They serve at the whim of the people. They are the engine of democracy. The court is the brakes. They decide when a law is unconstitutional. They thwart democracy.

The people of Texas long ago outlawed sodomy. It was the will of the people. The court, which by most accounts is conservative, said that law violated the constitutional right to privacy.

The Constitution outlines basic rights. It is very hard to change. It takes a super majority to add an amendment. Thus, even though the majority of states ratified the Equal Rights Amendment for women, it failed. This is a tyranny of the minority. It protects the minority from mob rule. It says certain rights should not be violated.

But what those rights are is open to interpretation. Some people argue that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Yes, it is true that those words are not in the document, but the Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ” What constitutes an unreasonable search? That is what a judge must decide.

Some people say that we must try to determine the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. But how is that possible? What do we think they thought about the right to buy birth control? Is this a freedom that 18th century men envisioned? Perhaps Ben Franklin but probably no one else. And why would we constrain our thought to people who thought that it was perfectly reasonable to count free persons as one, slaves as 3/5th, and not to count native Americans at all?

When John Adams, a Unitarian, went to the Constitutional Convention, his wife told him, “Don’t forget the women.” But he did. Women did not get the vote until 133 years later.

Article VI: “ . . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Yet it is common practice for the president to take the oath of office with his hand on the Bible. What constitutes a religious test? Even presidents who do not attend church invoke God in their speeches. It may be practical politics, but is it faith?

In recent years we have seen an increase of religion in the public square, and the attempt to use federal funds to support religious-based social programs. It was recently ruled that religious organizations can discriminate in hiring teachers for the Head Start preschool program.

In the past 40 years the Supreme Court has supported individual rights. Brown vs. Board of Education outlawed segregation. Segregation violates the right to assembly by excluding people.

Segregationists insisted that the ruling violated their right to choose whom they assemble with.

In recent years the courts have tended to restrict individual freedom. Allowing states to put restrictions on a woman’s right to choose abortion is but one example.

The court can be full of surprises. Nominees presented by conservative presidents have been known to make liberal decisions. The ability to politically influence the court is indirect. We can choose the president who nominates judges and the Senate that approves them. But the court is by and large a conservative body in that it resists change. It is always looking back at the Constitution and previous decisions. This can be frustrating when you want the interpretation of freedom to be expanded. But it is a saving grace when you think things are going to change too fast.

We are facing reversals in some of the civil rights that have been gained in the past few decades.

But even that is likely to take time.

There have been setbacks in the cause of freedom with the court. That includes the Dred Scott Decision and Plessy vs. Ferguson, which held back racial equality for over a century.

But by and large there has been an expansion of freedom.

If the court starts restricting our freedom, we will have to resort to democracy, mobilizing public opinion to put forth amendments, perhaps a new Equal Rights Amendment that includes gender and sexual orientation.

We may have to get busier than we have been before to win the public opinion. It is too easy to sit and complain. We must create a positive vision for America, one that appeals to red and blue states, one that emphasizes people’s freedom.

This approach requires a different tack. That is not as much fun as the self-righteous, judgmental

“I’m right and your wrong.”

How do we let people understand that separation of church and state is good for their religious expression? How do we get people to understand that protecting the environment helps quality of life? How do we get people to embrace reproductive freedom? How do we dismantle racism and poverty, that is interwoven with the very fabric of our society?

For far too long we have relied on the courts to do our work for us, applauding when judges rule in our favor, screaming when we disagree.

In order to change the world, we need to change the one thing we can: ourselves. First, we must take the log out of our own eye before we address the specks in the eyes of others. Instead of demanding that others change, we should change ourselves.

If we believe that workers are not getting a fair wage, we should shop in stores that treat their workers well. Tip your waitress. If we care about the environment, we should examine how and what we drive, what we buy and how we dispose of our trash.

If we do not like how elections go, then we should educate people about issues and maybe drive people to the polls, maybe serve as an election judge to make sure votes are counted.

If we perceive the world as racist, then what are we doing to end racism in our life? Where do we buy our home? Where do we send our kids to school, and where do we spend our money?

Writing a letter to Congress or the president may make some change. But politicians also respond to market forces. Tobacco legislation and lawsuits have had their impact. But the biggest impact has been changes in market forces. Fewer and fewer people smoke. The lawsuits and legislation were only possible because of the personal choice of people to stop their own smoking. That has had the biggest impact of all.

If you do not like what is on tv, turn it off. Invite friends to your house and do something different. When you see a good program on, call all your friends to watch and bring up the ratings of the program.

If we change the way we live, it will change market forces. But more importantly it allows us to be more honest in our judgments of others. If we start with ourselves, our lives will be worthy to be an example to others. If we judge ourselves honestly, then we can make an honest effort to change the world.