Why are Christians so mean?

But there is another thing. All that are not of God, but who take such a place, will infallibly become much worse than if they had never taken it. This is what we find so solemnly in Jude and Peter. There is no place in the New Testament where we find such a fearful character given. In both cases they were persons who had taken the stand of Christians, and a bad Christian is worse than an ordinary worldly man. Nor do I now confine myself in so speaking to a merely professing Christian. For when even a real Christian gets into a bad state, he will do and say things more unkind and more contrary to all that is becoming and right than any other man. It is the same flesh, whether it be in the Christian or in the non-Christian. The fallen nature of man is the same in all. The difference between the Christian and the unconverted man is not that the flesh is better in the one than in the other, but that the Christian has, with a new nature and the Spirit, One on high to guard and strengthen him against the flesh. But if there be anything allowed to hinder the Holy Ghost's working in him, the flesh shows itself.

There ought to be no question of the Lord's meaning here. No fault was more prevalent then or now. Censoriousness is not only the habitual bane of religious professors, but the snare to which true disciples are too prone. Gracious men who set their face in general against detraction are often bitter against what they themselves dislike, and thus slip into judging motives wrongly like others. He who is Judge of quick and dead discerns every heart, and enjoins what is comely and just on His followers. For this sin tends to hypocrisy; and what saint would regard such a thing lightly?

20 But the Morning Watch, prepossessed with its own views, and willing to have Mr. Erskine as a client or ally, has wholly passed by the whole question raised on his book, and not stated his assertions truly but as partisans, and stands itself on a level with the worst conduct of those it accuses. They themselves shall be witnesses. "The editors," they say, i.e., journals opposed to their views, "having refused to debate the subjects like scholars, like gentlemen, or Christians, have chosen their own ground, namely, that of personal claim to public confidence; and into that arena of their own selecting, we must descend after them. "And so indeed they have, and I sorrow for it, for I doubt not they would much edify the church; but they have to learn that Satan can use their weakness, as well as that of their offending brethren." And what shall we say then) if the church, forgetful of Christ's office of intercessor, and of her own high vocation to continue the same in the midst of an offending world, should take upon herself the office of accuser, and retaliate the injuries which she receiveth, instead of meekly bearing and being willing to forgive them? What if the church forget, even among themselves, the offices of neutral forbearance and forgiveness, and rage towards one another with even more bitterness and cruelty than those who care for none of those things? What if the writings the most religious should be the most vindictive, and the society the most religious should be the society most full of judgment and accusation? Then were it not a proof that God's ordinances were changed, that His light was hidden under a bushel, that the salt hath lost its savour, and that the name of God was blasphemed amongst the heathen because of His people, and that the last days were come, and that destruction was about to begin at His own house."

Is there not a searching lesson in this for us all? Is there not the tendency to treat with coldness and severity those who can be classed as “diseased”—to walk aloof from those who might be classed as weak and feeble? It is not wise to blink at facts. What cruelty and injustice have been practised in the name of Christ, perhaps not willingly and of intent, but often through mistaken ideas of faithfulness! These verses hit off many a situation that crowds in upon one’s memory.

This has not been the way of all who have professed to serve the Lord. Some seemed devoted for a while, but the test came and proved that they were not thinking the Lord's thoughts about His people, nor considering His great name's sake in connection with their service towards them. Self was mingled with their devotion, and because they were not accorded that recognition that they looked for they ceased to serve, from feelings of wounded pride. Or sectarian feelings, which always spring up from the flesh, governed them, and made them think more of the prosperity of a party or a special cause than of the whole company of God's redeemed people. We know something of the miserable bigotry and spitefulness of the flesh when it works in this sectarian way, for it is in all of us, and the more hateful is it because often working under a cloak of pretended faithfulness to God.

These searching questions thoroughly expose the religious man. His practice belies his profession. He has indeed the form of godliness, but without the power. His profession is far above the heathen, but his practice is no better.

(V. 24) The result is summed, up in one solemn statement. The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through the religious man. The Apostle is speaking of the Jew; but what he says is equally true of the professing Christian. The blasphemies of infidels have been mainly called forth by the corruptions, and the degraded practices of professing Christendom. Men would not indeed have turned Christians simply because Christians were consistent in practice; but if Christians were in their practice true to their profession, men would have no occasion to blaspheme God.

Now this "man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews," came to the Lord, feeling that all was not right. Religion without Christ can never make a man happy. A large percentage of so-called Christians have got just enough religion to make life miserable. Do you understand what I mean? They have a name to live, must keep up an appearance, and they have not Christ to satisfy their hearts. They are professors without being possessors of the truth, and their inconsistency of life is what puts numbers of young fellows against the gospel. You must have Christ within your heart, or it is no good. Nevertheless, do not think for a moment that I am giving you a reason for remaining in unbelief, or that any inconsistency in another man can be an excuse for your unbelief.

But, beloved, what is the Church doing? Is it living in heaven as it ought to be? Is it dazzling the world with the glorious manifestation of the holiness and power of God? Is it reflecting the brightness of His image, and thus being "the light of the world"? No! believers are grovelling as in the mud, disgusting the world itself with their religion. Oh, believe me, it is better not to be professors at all! Such religion makes infidels.

It is usually the case, that if an assembly is at the first lax to judge evil, when it does begin to deal with it, it will be over hard with the transgressor. It will sway from one extreme to the other. But God requires that His Word be obeyed, and we have patiently to follow in His Word. Neither laxity nor unrighteousness are of Him, and neither would exist in souls if we were in communion with Him. There cannot be too great abhorence of evil in our souls, but there may be a reprehensible severity against the transgressor. Men still "away from the Table" might have been restored if the very hand which smote — and necessarily smote — had been guided by an eye of sorrow. If a parent have to smite his child with the rod of correction, more than half the value of that act will be lost to his child if the parent loses his temper. The child will get its punishment, but the parent will forfeit his influence. The Lord would not have His people do a work of discipline for Him in His assembly, save as directed by Him. Neither would a right thing be done in a wrong way if there were subjection to His Spirit. And when there is severity, not of act, for discipline must be severe, but of heart, we shall usually find that it arises either from those whose souls are not free from the very kind of evil with which they are so angry in the person of the transgressor, or from those who have not judged themselves before God. And it is only necessary to observe the history of those whose undignified severity against the transgressor savours of vindictiveness, to learn, as time goes on, that the very men whose hard spirits — hard, not towards the evil, but the transgressor — so afflicted their brethren, have had in their hearts the seeds of the very same kind of error which they denounced in others. The reaping times come round, and as men sow they will surely reap.

Then there is another danger, and that is of censoriousness. The habit of always seeing faults in others is exceedingly to be deprecated and watched against. "And why lookest thou on the mote that is in thy brother's eye?" What is the true root of it? Invariably, where there is the habit of beholding faults in others, there is an overlooking of our own. "Why lookest thou on the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" In that state of things we cannot help others: we must have our own evil dealt with first. "For how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, allow [me], I will cast out the mote that is in thine eye" (love would meet another's want: self is blind and busy, forgets its own faults, but can be zealous in correcting others for its own glory) — "thyself not seeing the beam that is in thine eye?" Our own fault, unjudged, always obstructs our affording real aid to another. Whereas, where we have judged ourselves, it is not only that we can see more clearly, but we can enter upon the work more humbly and lovingly. It is this that makes a man spiritual. Nothing but self-judgment can ever do it, coupled with the sense of the Lord's great grace and holiness, which is the crown of self-judgment, by the Spirit's power. But it is only the sense of the Saviour's grace and regard for His holiness, which produces self-judgment; as, on the other hand, the exercise of self-judgment increases our sense of that grace, and keeps us bright in it, instead of letting ourselves be lowered to the level of surrounding circumstances, and the state to which the allowance of flesh would ever reduce us. The Lord speaks very severely of such — "Hypocrite!" and I believe censoriousness as a rule does tend directly to hypocrisy. It leads persons to assume a spirituality which they do not possess; and is this truthful? A person who is continually commenting on others you may set down as more or less hypocritical in pretending to a holiness which is certainly beyond his measure. Such is the Lord's judgment; and you may be sure that the word which He has spoken will so decide at the last day. People forget that there is no way of pretending to spirituality more cheap and more imposing on thoughtless minds than this readiness to speak of the faults of others; but there is scarcely anything that the Lord Jesus more sternly refutes and condemns. "Hypocrite! cast out first the beam out of thine eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."