A Better Option than Judge-Free Zones

by Dan Masterton

The title of “judge” has been thoroughly watered down by competition-based reality shows. The first circus slate of “judges” I remember is the original crew from American Idol: Paula Abdul, Randy Jackson, and, of course, Simon Cowell. Much like other similar shows that followed, these judges were picked, at least partially, for having some degree of relevant acumen, accomplishment, and experience that qualified them to make credible judgments of the contestants. Inevitably, though, their “judgments” became caricatures -- Randy dropping the word “dog,” Simon denigrating performers with caustic, British-dry criticisms, and Paula picking up the pieces with flimsy affirmation.

While on some level, they still functioned as judges, making choices that decided who would be eliminated or advance, they became cardboard cutouts, there to provide personality and entertainment to fill out a show with very little content and a lot of protracted, contrived drama. America’s Got Talent, The Voice, X-Factor, and so many other shows have recycled the same model to create mass-produced episodes. Calling people like Simon Cowell, Sharon Osbourne, Piers Morgan, Blake Shelton, and others “judges” is a bit of a joke. Frankly, it’s a title more fitting for the livestock inspector at a state fair.

When I think of judges, I more readily think of austere, solemn, imposing looking people, wearing long black robes, perhaps an old-school wig, seated at an elevated judge’s stand, and wielding a gavel. The nerdier part of me thinks also of the courageous leaders of Israel who, though presiding over a period of ups and downs, rose to lead the evolving tribes of Israel as they sought to settle their promised land.

"The clown is down."

But deeper than these images alone, I think of the functions of a judge. A judge is tasked with controlling and stabilizing a courtroom -- ensuring proper protocol, hearing arguments, allowing or denying objections, and guaranteeing proper respect and decorum. A judge is trusted to remain fair, unbiased, and balanced, in applying the law as best they understand it to the facts of a case as they are laid out. A judge is appointed to make a final ruling on a case, to render a verdict that will have serious consequences for individuals and society. With offense intended to reality TV judges -- but not much offense meant to those at state fairs -- this is the gravitas the word “judge” deserves.

Increasingly, society has normalized relativistic understandings. While not abandoning absolute truth altogether, the trend is to soften and genericize social standards to preserve individuals’ autonomy to decide what’s best for them, such that any one person’s beliefs can rarely be imposed on another, who must be encumbered in decisions. In conjunction, I hear more and more the insistence on places being “judge-free zones.”

Without venturing full-bore down the rabbit hole of relativism vs. absolutism, I think people have a desire to avoid offending one another, to not step on others’ toes or cramp their styles too much. I know I struggle, both professionally and socially, to let go of needing everyone to like me; there are times where respectful cooperation or collaboration is more important than not hurting feelings. So when it comes to behavior and morality, even if I see someone doing something wrong, I hesitate to speak up because I have hesitations about offending them or coming off as harsh.

Unfortunately, this often leads to a “live and let live” sort of approach, where we just live our lives in parallel, rarely intervening to redirect others’ behavior. However, I know that, personally, when I’m falling short, I want to be called out. I don’t mind being criticized by my wife, a co-worker, my boss, a friend, etc. Sure, I may defend myself and try to explain myself, but regardless of my level of cageyness, I do take the comments to heart as I think about how I’ve been acting and how I can improve. I just want to hear it in good faith.

I imagine that most people would want their friends to be cognizant of the major struggles we often face and be sources of support to help, even if it takes some confrontation and intervention. When people face alcoholism, addiction, depression, anxiety, and more -- let alone the more mundane ebb and flow daily life’s emotions -- I’d hope that friends would hunker down and speak up. Even if you know your friend may push back against your confrontation, I hope most people’s friendship impulses will find the love to intervene.

I think what I want to do for others, and what others would probably like from me, is to be judged compassionately and lovingly. There are times where we may need to warm up to it: maybe you can think of times when you went to that certain person who would receive you charitably and tell you more so what you wanted to hear than what you needed to hear; maybe there have been times when you just wanted to vent or unwind before confronting tougher stuff; maybe there have been times when you’ve avoided confrontation about someone else or yourself to delay the moment of truth. No matter the circumstances, I think most of us want to be judged; I just also think that most of us want to be judged constructively and fear moments when we may be judged negatively.

The ideal, as always, is the example of Christ. Jesus wasn’t perfectly even-keeled and kumbaya all the time. While he worked healings, cures, and forgiveness, he also chastised injustice, called out hypocrisies, and disrupted the backwards practices inside the temple walls. The key is that Christ’s treatment of others was just, only doing that which conformed with what God expects of us. I do not encourage you to overturn your friends’ tables at will, but the compassionate confrontation of a friend in need is the true love of a friend indeed.