From the Pastor’s Study
Condemnation and Commendation
March 23, 2022
Commendation and condemnation are two words in the English language that, although they contain many of the same letters, mean two entirely different things. Both words, commend and condemn are derived from Latin, and in both words the first syllable (con, com) comes from the Latin that means “with.”
It is the second syllable of both words which makes all the difference. “Commend” is derived from the same root which gives us the word, “mandate.” Someone acting with a legitimate mandate is to be commended. On the other hand, “condemn” is derived from the same root word as “damn” or “doom.” One who is condemned has done something wrong and is doomed to punishment.
We might take Mr. Putin as an example. Many believe that Mr. Putin had no mandate to start a war against Ukraine, and therefore we condemn his actions, and he should be punished. Those who are providing aid to the Ukrainian refugees, on the other hand, are doing so with a mandate from the leaders of many countries around the world, and we commend their actions. We might say that those who act without a lawfully given mandate ought to be condemned not commended.
It follows, then, that we can either commend or condemn the actions of another based on whether or not they had been mandated to do what they did. Many would say, for example, that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is to be condemned because there is no justifiable reason for such activity while the invasion of Iraq by Allied forces led by the USA is commendable. The Allied forces claimed the right to invade Iraq because they believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was preparing to use them. (As we know, no such weapons were found, but that does not seem to deter many in the West from commending the actions of the Allied forces.) Whatever reasons Mr. Putin gives for invading Ukraine, they are unacceptable to most countries in the world and thus he stands condemned.
This leads to another question: who has the right to give the mandate that will determine if an action is to be commended or condemned? This question is much harder to answer, and, for the most part, the answer is determined by one’s country of origin, upbringing, and political allegiance. The legitimacy of the mandate is determined by whether or not one believes that the one giving the mandate has the right to do so. Who gave Mr. Putin the mandate to invade Ukraine? Who gave the Allies the right to invade Iraq? In both cases, it would appear, those who acted did so after giving themselves their mandates, supporting themselves with evidence.
What nations do is a reflection of what many people, at least in the West, do every day. Who gives us our mandates to do what we do? For the most part, in the West at least, people give themselves their own mandates, and they act on those mandates, saying that no one should condemn them. As individuals we may not decide to invade another’s property (as countries do), but we take upon ourselves the decision to say what is right or wrong, giving ourselves our own mandates and thus justifying our actions. Very often we hear the phrase, “It is my right to do this or that,” and I suspect that if we challenge the speaker, we will discover that they have given themselves the right to make their own mandates and thus believe that they are not subject to condemnation but, rather, to commendation. We see this in many lifestyle choices today where someone says, “It feels right to me,” giving themselves the mandate to act in a particular way and then expecting that others will commend them on what they are doing. But how different is this from what Mr. Putin is doing except that it is on a much smaller scale? Giving ourselves our own mandates makes us think we are above condemnation.
As Christians we do not believe that we have the authority or right to create our own mandates. I may not decide to mandate myself to live in a certain way because it feels right to me. Rather, I must submit myself to God and his will, trusting that his will is the mandate which I am obligated to follow. God is the only one who may mandate his creation to do anything. Thus, if we follow his mandate, we should be commended, but if we fail to follow it, we stand condemned. This doesn’t sit very well with many in our world because we are told we are not to judge. Certainly, we do not have the right to condemn someone to eternal doom, but we can discern whether or not what we or others are doing falls within the mandate God has given us.
When the apostle Paul talks about our actions, he is not hesitant to use the word, “condemn.” What surprises Paul is that although none of us follows God’s mandate completely thus making us worthy of condemnation, we are not condemned at all. In fact, through faith in Jesus Christ, we avoid that condemnation and are commended by Jesus to his Father so that we also become his children.
It would seem, then, that if are going to bring people to faith in Jesus Christ in our world we must start with a discussion about mandates. Who gets to say what action is commendable or condemnable? If it is us, there is no need for us to seek salvation. If it is God, then his offer of salvation is crucial, for without it we will always stand condemned. If we determine how we live by self-given mandates, how are we really different from Mr. Putin? What makes him any more wrong than us? If, however, we base our actions on God’s mandate, then we can rejoice that while we fail to do as he says, what he has given by grace in Jesus Christ is truly a miraculous and undeserved gift.
Pastor Gary
