| MAKING JUDGMENTS WITHOUT BEING JUDGMENTAL Terry D. Cooper I AM REVEALED B. Childress Dec 15, 2011 I remember overhearing a conversation at a party that called my attention to the difference between "making judgments" and "being judgmental." Two people were talking: Bill mentioned to Brad that a young girl he knew had been sexually abused. Bill was ethically outraged and stunned that this event had happened. "Can you believe this?" he said. "I know that little girl!" Bill went on to declare, "I really hope they catch the pervert!" Brad then said, "You don't really know what may have been going on with the perpetrator. Perhaps he was sexually abused also. Perhaps he couldn't help what he did. You really shouldn't be judgmental about what he did." "Not be judgmental!" yelled Bill. "How can I possibly be nonjudgmental, Brad? Are you saying that what he did was okay?" "That's not for me to say," responded Brad. "Things just happen. Who are we to judge them? I'm part of a spiritual discussion group that believes we should judge nothing. Surely none of us is in a position to judge." This conversation revealed a profound confusion about the differences between making judgments and being judgmental. Brad confused the notion of judgmentalism with making ethical judgments about hurtful, life-damaging behavior. The behavior of the perpetrator indeed needs to be judged. Who really believes we should be "neutral" or "open-minded" about sexual abuse? No one, I hope. It's wrong. It's a terrible violation of another person, a young vulnerable person. By refusing to judge this act, Brad was essentially ignoring its ethical consequences. The perpetrator is surely a complicated human being, and the perpetrator's entire being and existence should not be leveled because of this act. Yet whatever the context, this act was wrong and needed to be judged. Many of us confuse the difference between making judgments and being judgmental. Yet the two mental processes are not at all the same. Again, it is perfectly appropriate to negatively evaluate actions and behavior that bring hurt, damage, or pain to another person. In fact, to not react to such a behavior is to have a numbed sense of conscience. A world without judgments would be a world without conviction, principles and ethical concerns. Regardless of how flexible and open-minded we may want to be, we cannot have a concept of "the good life" without a picture of what is detrimental and destructive to that good life. Therefore, in retaliation against judgmentalism some individuals have insisted on judging nothing. All things, they say, are acceptable or somehow a part of the scheme of things. All of us have our private opinions, but someone else's behavior is none of our business. The worst thing imaginable is intolerance. In fact, intolerance is seen as the only taboo in a very diverse world. Hence, we don't want to be seen as someone who makes "judgments." However, regardless of what we may claim in a group discussion, we cannot live our lives completely value-neutral. Our values reside beneath every decision we make. We may not be aware of it at the time, but our values are constantly guiding our behavior. If we do embrace a judge-nothing philosophy, however, the end result is ethical neutrality and moral indifference. A desire to not come down on anything places us in a world without convictions, a place where all standards are completely private, and in a situation in which society is nearly impossible. One morality is just as good as the next. The confusion here results from not separating the judgment of behaviors from the judgment of entire people. And this separation is notoriously hard to do. Again, some behaviors need very much to be judged. They are damaging to people and harmful to life. They deteriorate the well-being of this world. They are destructive and in some cases evil. Yet this focus on behaviors must be kept separate from a denouncement of entire people. Let's look, more specifically, at the differences between making judgments and being judgmental. HEALTHY JUDGMENTS VS. JUDGMENTALISM I want to suggest seven very important distinctions between the necessary process of making judgments and the unnecessary process of being judgmental. Let's examine each of them in the table and section below. Concern. Whereas healthy judgment involves concern for others, judgmentalism often has no concern whatsoever for the people it is condemning. Judgmentalism does not care if it hurts another's feelings; it is far more interested in winning the argument than in helping another human being. The irony for judgmentalism is that people will not listen, no matter how convincing the argument, if they do not feel cared for. These, then, are some of the principal contrasts between healthy judgments and judgmentalism. Healthy judgment evaluates evidence carefully; is unafraid to decide; recognizes its own limitations; is willing to change its mind; refuses to distrust another's motives unless there is clear evidence for this suspicion; holds its convictions with charity and tolerance for others. These features are typically lacking in judgmentalism. Trust. Another characteristic of healthy judgment is that it refuses to distrust another's motives unless we have solid evidence for doing so. Judgmentalism, on the other hand, claims to be able to read people's minds. Judgmentalism knows what everyone's motive is, even when there is no reasonable evidence. It has secret information, which it uses to clobber another. Judgmentalism, therefore, is highly suspicious, if not paranoid, of others. For instance, when someone does something nice for us, he or she must be after something. When a man and woman talk, they must be planning an affair. Notice the arrogance involved in the claim to know all these things about people. Much of this mentality emerges, I believe, from a fearful preoccupation that others are trying to take advantage of us. Instead of admitting our fears, we project them onto others whose motives we then demonize. Because of our own anxiety, we claim to know intuitively what others are secretly thinking, planning or plotting. This is our way of feeling safe. The sad reality is that we are trying to feel safe by prematurely identifying enemies when they may be potential friends. Tolerant. Another characteristic of judgmentalism is that it often clings so tenaciously to religious and moral concepts that it ends up disrespecting anyone who is different. Healthy judgment may indeed think that the ideas of someone are off-base, limited or even dangerous. However, it extends tolerance to the person beneath the ideas. It knows that giving an opposing viewpoint air time does not mean that it endorses it. Judgmentalism, on the other hand, is afraid to even hear another perspective. It cannot distinguish between respectfully listening to people and agreeing with them. When we are judgmental, we often become paranoid about ideas different from our own. Superstitiously, we assume that merely hearing these ideas will somehow cause us to be taken over by them. Out of fear, we disregard common courtesy. While healthy judgment is not afraid to condemn racism, sexism, dehumanizing attitudes, the exploitation of people and other destructive practices, judgmentalism refuses to separate the person from their ideas and conduct. Behavior vs. people. A woman once told me that she had decided to see her minister to talk about the possibility of leaving her husband. Her husband, she said, was regularly abusing her physically, verbally and emotionally. She tended to be passive, easygoing and "too" forgiving. Finally gathering the inner strength to admit that she wanted more out of life than this abuse, she made an appointment with her pastor. As she began to explain the history and complexity of her relationship - especially talking about how her own family-of-origin experiences may have led her toward an abusive relationship - she noticed that the minister seemed rather uninterested. Observing this, she asked the pastor, "Am I being clear?" "Yes," said the pastor, "but I have only one question." "Okay," she said, "please ask me." "Has your husband been unfaithful? Has he had an affair?" "No," she said, "not that I'm aware of." "Then you have no grounds for a divorce," pronounced the minister. "You need to stay with this man and work it out. In fact, you must not have a very strong sense of commitment! If there's been no infidelity, then you need to pray and work harder in the relationship." When I first heard about this story,this was the immediate, judgmental monologue inside my own head: This story is offensive on so many fronts! Here's a pastoral "counselor" who sizes up this woman's entire marriage in ten minutes. He reduces every complexity in her life and demands that it fit his marital categories. He refuses to struggle with her, to understand her, to explore the unknown with her. In short, he refuses to be bothered by her! This is one of the ugliest psychological sins one human being can do to another - reducing her entire, complex world into something quite manageable for him. He is not very pastoral, and he is certainly not a counselor. His fundamentalist, black-and-white standards are willing to send this woman back into a highly abusive marriage. Maybe he has a lousy marriage and wants everyone else to be unhappy also. He's just another rigid and uptight fanatic who can't deal with life. I don't know who was more judgmental - me or the minister. Yes, he was certainly not hearing the complexities of her life and seemed more preoccupied with his "answer" than with genuinely hearing her struggles. He seemed to approach this problem with a rather black-and-white framework, which did not do justice to the woman's life experience. Yes, he was more interested in sizing up the situation from an outsider's view than with empathizing with her dilemma and pain. Yet what was I doing? The same thing! She told me about this guy, and I had him placed within a belligerent fanatic category without even meeting him. He was nothing but a fundamentalist to me. From there, I made all sorts of caricatures about his personality and stereotyped him with an authoritarian, rigid, dogmatic label. I didn't simply think he mishandled her feelings, I thought he was a lousy minister and human being. How proud I was to point out his self- righteousness. While I do not think that this pastor's approach on that particular day with that particular person was very effective or caring, I had no business jumping to the conclusion that there was not a caring bone in the man's body. Further, while I don't think his premature advice was beneficial to her, this hardly means that he was operating with a sinister motive to heighten her misery. Yes, I think the man was wrong, but I should not judge his entire ministry or personhood based on one situation. I was accusing him of evaluating this woman's life without any sense of empathy, yet where was my empathy when I attacked his entire life? Again, this is the insidiousness of judgmentalism: We can often become very judgmental in our fight against judgmentalism. Open. Healthy judgment also recognizes the unresolved problems with our own viewpoints. We realize that we'll never have everything figured out perfectly, but in the meantime, we can live full lives. Healthy judgment recognizes its limits without shame or self-ridicule. It does not parade its view as if that view had no problems. It admits having blinders or areas in which it does not see the whole picture. It has learned that it can have conviction without having certainty. Nonjudgmentalism is willing to risk the journey into another person's world, which always means the possibility that we may be changed too. Henri Nouwen, in his typical eloquence, states this beautifully:
situation, without taking the risk of becoming hurt, wounded or even destroyed in the process...Who can save a child from a burning house without the risk of being hurt by the flames? Who can listen to a story of loneliness and despair without taking the risk of experiencing similar pains in his own heart and even losing his precious peace of mind? In short: "Who can take away suffering without entering it?" arrogance, it insists on absolute certainty. If it is challenged, it frequently reacts with hostility toward the questioner. It is proud of its conviction and expects immediate agreement from others. Healthy judgment also involves a willingness to change one's mind. This means that right in the middle of an argument, we may turn about face and say, "I believe you're right." While we may not see this happen very often, it is a possibility when we form healthy judgments. We simply see that another viewpoint explains more or makes more sense than ours, perhaps because we have taken the time to enter into another person's world. Because we are not arrogantly attached to "owning" the truth, we are then free to change our thinking as new evidence comes in. This does not mean that we lack convictions, nor does it mean that we have previously been an idiot. It simply means that we have new information, a new perspective, a better way of looking at something than before. In short, this kind of change is quite possible if we can keep our swollen and bruised egos out of the picture. Consider the following example. Henry frequently drank coffee at a local café with several other retired men who enjoyed gathering together every morning. While the conversation touched on many topics, it often came back around to politics. Some of the men enjoyed hearing each other's opinions, and while they sometimes disagreed, it was usually an invigorating discussion. Henry, however, was another matter! The group was often sabotaged from interesting conversation because Henry could not stand anyone who disagreed with him. Even if another person had a more sensible argument, more evidence and differed with Henry in a friendly manner, Henry would dig in and want to argue the rest of the day. Henry always had more opinions than facts, stronger emotions than reasons. Many of these gatherings were forfeited by Henry's fierce need to argue. He was like a dog with a bone, unable to let anything go. If the group tried to change topics, Henry would bring it back to his argument. He would get so red-faced that some members of the group feared that he was going to have a heart attack right in the café. Henry was a conversation stopper. When the rest of the group saw him come in, they knew that this was the end of a good conversation. He came each morning not to hear, share or understand better; instead, he came to push his opinions on everyone else and get some sort of hostile delight out of arguing with people. Henry wasn't going to change his mind about anything! Eventually, the group started meeting at another place in hopes that Henry would not discover where they were. Most of us have met a "Henry" before. A stubborn refusal to change one's mind often promotes a relentless argumentativeness that is difficult for others to endure. The challenge is to stand for our convictions while not resorting to argumentative reactivity, which will alienate us from people. We may ask ourselves, "Why do I take the bait?" But the answer is that it is extremely difficult not to take it. Time. While being open to new information and other perspectives, making a healthy judgment involves a calm, sober insistence on looking at all the evidence before reaching a conclusion. Healthy judgments normally take time. They are weighted out, evaluated and thought about carefully. Healthy judgments attempt to nondiscriminately examine as many factors as possible. They refuse to make mental jumps or careless castigations. Stated simply, careful judgments are the opposite of snap decisions. Snap decisions are usually promoted by a sudden burst of reactionary emotion. We quickly shuffle someone into a stereotype, or we rapidly place a concept in with "all those other weird ideas" we've heard before. When we meet someone new, we're immediately ready to categorize: redneck, egghead, highbrow, lowbrow, radical feminist, chauvinist, religious nut, heathen and so on. If a problem or issue does not trigger a great deal of emotion, most of us are capable of making healthy judgments. A decision as to which school to attend, which house to buy or which insurance policy is best are all familiar examples. We want to be cautious and conscientious. Judgmentalism as a mentality, however, is based on reactionary protest to something. It is emotional reasoning, which allows clear thinking no room to navigate amidst our colliding feelings. It does not seem to care that it lacks solid evidence. It is a knee-jerk opinion. Much of the time, this emotional reasoning is based on some sort of unfairness or hurt we have experienced in the past. Someone then says or does something that triggers this unpleasant memory, and we automatically strike out or want to write them off. This is often done instantly and unconsciously. Our ability to listen to people and evaluate their perspectives is hijacked by our emotional reaction. All of a sudden we are fighting old battles that sometimes have little to do with the present issue. We are recycling unhealed resentments and injuries from our personal past. An example of this can be taken from my psychology classes. When Sigmund Freud is introduced, some students almost immediately recoil. Freud, for them, is both a chauvinist and a man utterly preoccupied with sex. Because of his evaluation of women, the man has no truth to speak whatsoever! Even his name conjures up emotional reactions. The conclusion is drawn that because he had some sexist attitudes, all of his theories are invalid and not worth investigating. Freud is dismissed even before his ideas are understood. This also happens frequently when we get into a new romantic relationship, particularly if we have not had adequate time to grieve and let go of a previous relationship. Jenny decided that she could not deal with Allan's perpetually irresponsible lifestyle any longer. He was quite undependable and she wanted a partner she could count on. Her friends encouraged her to eventually go out with Brent, whom they said she would really like. Brent arranged a blind date. Because of unexpected traffic problems, Brent was eight minutes late picking Jenny up. She got in the car and immediately told him that she didn't appreciate his lack of consideration and his insensitivity. "I'm only interested," she said, "in people I can count on." This date did not go well. Brent received a lot of heat that belonged to a previous relationship. With unresolved previous hurts, Jenny was poised and ready to place Brent in the "undependable" category. She sized him up within the first five minutes of the date (or I should say in the eight minutes she waited for him). Jenny was not free to evaluate the relationship for its potential and promise. Instead, a snap judgment based on yesterday's experience pushed Brent away. Unafraid. And finally, another characteristic of healthy judgments is that they are not driven by fear. Instead, they’re a careful expression of a mind that, while open to other information, is unafraid to decide based on the information it has. It does not remain forever suspended because it is willing to admit that choosing one thing means denying another. Going to San Francisco on vacation means not going to Florida. Going to a movie means not going to the ballgame. Decision means letting go of some possibilities while affirming others. Healthy judgment is aware that we can't have it all. Judgmentalism, on the other hand, is driven by fear of carefully examining evidence and thinking analytically. Judgmentalism is too impulsive to carefully look at all the choices. It tends to be unreflective and careless. Again, it does not have time to withhold its opinion; that's too much work and requires too much energy. Instead, it seeks quick black-or-white extremes. Every situation must involve a right decision and a wrong one. There is no room for ambivalence. It cannot possibly be that there may be three right decisions or no right decision. A judgmental mentality expects that life present itself in all-or-nothing categories. It's much too frightening to admit that there may be several angles on a decision. There must be only one! If we are struggling with a difficult decision, a decision that is complex, murky and requires a great deal of consideration, we will find little help from judgmental people. They can't seem to hold their stallions of judgment back long enough to hear a problem laid out. Before we have even attempted to describe a problem, they have cut us off and given us only two options. These people, however well-intended they may be, make terrible counselors. They simply don’t have tolerance for confusion. It's tunnel vision with no capacity to hear ambiguities. This is why many people seek out professional counselors; they don't go to the counselor to get more advice - they already have plenty of that! - they need help sorting through complex problems. They need someone with the mental space in their head to hear them out, to let them struggle, to look at all angles. They need to have their complexity respected. They do not need to have a complicated world painted in black and white. CRITICAL THINKING VS. THINKING CRITICALLY Another way of understanding the differences between making judgments and being judgmental is to highlight the differences between critical thinking and thinking critically. Critical thinking is an important skill for the purposes of making judgments. Most colleges have courses that help students develop these critical thinking skills. But by critical thinking, I mean careful thinking, rather than negative thinking. Thinking critically, on the other hand, invokes the mentality of judgmentalism. It is cynical, nonaffirming, and preoccupied with the errors in what another says rather than in the truth in what they are saying. It is not simply careful; instead, it is highly suspicious and even paranoid. Its major concern is faultfinding. To better understand judgmental vs nonjudgmental thinking, in table 2 are some key differences between critical thinking and thinking critically. These differences point toward two mentalities. While most of us fluctuate back and forth between the two, it is important to identify times when we are thinking critically rather than looking at something with clear-minded, careful attention. Thinking critically is usually generated not by caution, but instead by sarcasm, cynicism and, ultimately, nihilism. It assumes that affirming anything only indicates how naive we are. Yet what is interesting is that many people who engage in thinking critically never put their own negativity on trial. Perhaps they feel safer when they believe in nothing. Yet the belief in nothing is a very important belief and one they should also critically examine. Thinking critically needs to be critically examined. REFLECTIVE AND OPEN-MINDED VS. SOUND BITES AND CLICHÉS Quite frankly, it is much easier to be down on everything than to affirm something. It requires far less mental and emotional energy. Again, judgmentalism is easy, while nonjudgmentalism is difficult and requires a lot of effort. While I wish to strongly encourage openmindedness throughout this book, I must honestly say that closed-mindedness is far simpler. It may be less fulfilling, but it is more convenient. While clear-minded people may have an understanding of several viewpoints, this awareness of multiple views may make them hesitant, careful and at times even timid. We are, after all, normally less prone toward zealous claims when we notice that there are a lot of perspectives available. In other words, the more we fairly examine alternative positions, the more inclined we may be to doubt ourselves. Author Daniel Taylor is quite frank about the pros and cons of being a reflective, open-minded thinker.
contemplative, less likely to be active; more likely to be marked by the pursuit of answers, less by the finding of them. The result is a high potential for creativity, curiosity and discovery, but also for paralyzing ambivalence, alienation, and melancholy. The point seems to be that we pay a price for greater understanding. Another disadvantage of open-minded thinking is the loss of colorful expletives and inflammatory language. Judgmental language is powerful language. It makes us feel strong when we use it. It is, after all, the vehicle of shame. It is also deceptive in that it makes us believe we are as certain as we sound. Fair, nonjudgmental language, on the other hand, is less interesting. It tends to be calm, sober and careful about the words it chooses. It forces us to use our minds and not simply rely on strong emotion. It doesn't pulverize anyone. It does not draw a lot of oohs and ahs from an audience. Nonjudgmental language will not rely on inflammatory sound bites, regardless of how much attention that might attract. In short, it refuses to go for the jugular. It is a sad fact that our public discourse so often revolves around irrational exaggeration and hype. In order to make a point, we often must grossly overstate the point. Especially in any campaign year, just listen to the bombastic words and grandiose zeal of many politicians. The careful, respecting attitude that sees some legitimacy in another's opposing view is completely lost. It's a rigid, mud-slinging world of easy right-and-wrong answers. Being accurate is far less important than being colorful. "Sound bites," those quick, fiery expressions that squeeze complex issues into trite clichés, are unfortunately appealing to many. This is the world of easy pronouncements and generalizations. These bumper-sticker phrases help many come across very well on televised talk shows and media events. A person who makes a sincere attempt to address all sides of the issue is either cut off or brushed aside as wishy-washy and lacking in convictions. We don't have time to hear that person out. Often, in the public's view, a person who can memorize a series of provocative words and images, who can aggressively push the discussion back to his or her own limited view, "wins" many debates. Comprehension and depth of understanding get in the way! That's not exciting enough. Instead, we want 100 percent conviction about complicated issues. But to be loud doesn't mean that someone is profound. To be colorful doesn't mean that someone has understanding. To "call it like it is" may mean that someone has a very narrow view of the world. To be boisterous, overconfident and dogmatic doesn't mean that someone has the truth. There is a close proximity between judgmentalism and arrogance. In order to better understand judgmentalism and to begin to move away from it in our own thinking, it is important to understand this connection between judgmentalism and mental grandiosity. It is to this issue that we now turn. Source: MAKING JUDGMENTS WITHOUT BEING JUDGMENTAL, by Terry D. Cooper, Copyright 2006, InterVarsity Press. |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
2010 - HIS GLORY REIGNS
| LIFE IN JESUS-MINISTRIES |
|
|