The United States has three branches of government, the Executive branch which is administered by the President. The President enforces the laws that the Legislative branch makes. There is the legislative branch is also know as the Congress. The Congress makes the laws of the U.S. The congress is divided into two parts, the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The third part of the United States is the Judicial part, which includes the Supreme Court and the 9 Justices. The purpose of this branch is to interpret laws according to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme court s the highest court int eh country and only hears cases pertaining to issues related to the Constitution. They have lower courts located in each state to hear cases involving federal issues.
Court has always been a weird subject for Christians. Mainly because there is some pretty obvious teaching about courts in the New Testament. These teaching generally come in the form of what Christians should do with one-another (i.e. not to sue one another but bring their “cases” before one another). I think most conservative Christians would probably agree that we should not be suing each other. This tends to run into some problems in America because we generally hold an entitlement attitude.
What I really want to discuss are the verses that talk about how we Christians should interact with the world. In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul tells us that we really have no business judging “outsiders” – God will judge the world. Now I don’t believe that Paul is specifically talking about the court system here. He is most likely talking about our attitudes towards the lost. However, I think this philosophy should definitely leak into our understanding of our court systems – not only as judges but as juries.
I also sense that this idea of not judging the world leaks into the other government realms, politics, voting, lobbying, etc.
What do you think? I have really been enjoying the conversation going on in this series.
Twice during His ministry (at the beginning and at the end) Jesus cleared the Temple of those selling and trading goods. He said His Father’s House should be a place of worship and not a den of robbers. Though a few radicals have extended this verse and said that Christ condemned all market activity, I think most would agree that Jesus was merely denouncing the Temple for mixing matters of faith with profit. The market in itself is not evil (for indeed how can any man live without buying, selling, and trading with his neighbor?) but it served a distinct function from the Temple and thereby should have been kept separate from it.
I think one draw a parallel between this and Paul’s instruction in I Corinthians 5. While it is possible that Paul is condemning the activity of Ecclesiastical Courts when imposed on those outside of the church, I doubt this is the correct interpretation. It seems that Paul is instructing believers in their role as spiritual judges within the church. They are to judge those within the church—if one claims to be a believer and lives in open unrepentant sin, that person is to be ‘excommunicated’ not associated with. They are to drive the wicked out from among them. In another place Paul says this (giving one over to the world) is an act of mercy, it shows them they are in the wrong and gives them an opportunity to repent.
But this does not extend to unbelievers. Indeed, as Paul writes elsewhere, how could we even exist on earth if we are to not associate with evil unbelievers, for the world is filled with them. In what sense is Paul using the word ‘judge’ here? In the say way he used it just a verse before: in regards to breaking association with a person as a church body. A church body should break association with one who claims to be a believer, but lives in unrepentant rebellion, but one should not break association with an unbeliever who lives in sin. Given this definition of judgment I think it is impossible (or at least a stretch) to extend this prohibition to court proceedings.
Judgment in court requires two things. The first is defining unlawful behavior. This is obviously acceptable to us as Christians for the Bible defines what is lawful and unlawful; indeed we have the clearest understanding of this. And indeed this standard must be known so that we may correct one another and as brothers and teach and equip them to grow in Godliness. Knowing the Truth it seems appropriate (and even desirable) that people with an understanding of God’s laws make law.
The second thing one must do is to consider the evidence and decide whether or not a particular person committed a particular crime at a particular time and place. For a Christian to act as an officer of the court (either as a jury member or judge) seems to me to be quite devoid of controversy. An officer of the court does not judge at all, they simply apply the law to the facts of the case and in our system decide whether or not the evidence shows that a given actor has broken a given law beyond a reasonable doubt. They are not judging whether or not that conduct is unlawful, but only if that given conduct occurred. And given mandatory sentencing guidelines (not in operation in all states, but in many and in the federal system) a judge need not even decide what punishment the act merits, he simply inserts the acts into a grid that gives him an answer.
There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that says Christians should not be involved in government. And indeed in the Old Testament many of the most Godly men were leaders of the government in Israel (David, Josiah, Hezekiah), prophets who ‘lobbied’ the government (Isaiah, Amos, Elijah), or leaders in Pagan governments (Nehemiah, Joseph, Daniel) who used their position to serve God.
Sure one can say: ‘but the Bible also doesn’t flatly bar one from being a slave trader or abortionist, yet we know they are wrong. You cannot argue license by silence.’ Yes, but in those cases the Bible has clear instruction that indicate those are inappropriate jobs (a notion of equality of souls that undermines the institution of slavery and the command do not murder that rules out abortion).
The core function of government is to administer justice. In no place in the Bible is justice condemned, on the contrary it is constantly lauded. Working within the government and furthering justice therefore does not seem to be discouraged in any way by what is written outright or implied within the Bible.
Can government be unjust? Of course. I am sure that Babylon and Egypt were not havens of justice, but that did not prevent Godly men from serving in those governments and doing good within those messed up systems. In the same way our government does unjust things, but that does not prevent Godly men from working within it and doing good within this system.
Nomodiphas,
Thanks again for the great comment. I have to say though, your first example (Jesus) doesn’t help your case. Only because Jesus is God – and I already said/showed that God will judge the world.
Further, the Nation of Israel (before the crucifixion event) was what God was using as his witness to the world. We already know that Christians can judge other Christians, so by extension I would say that Israel had the right to judge themselves as well.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say, “While it is possible that Paul is condemning the activity of Ecclesiastical Courts when imposed on those outside of the church, I doubt this is the correct interpretation.”
I already said, “Now I don’t believe that Paul is specifically talking about the court system here.” But I do think that the philosophy should leak into our understanding of the church. Especially when we continue to read in 1 Corinthians 5.
You said, “A church body should break association with one who claims to be a believer, but lives in unrepentant rebellion, but one should not break association with an unbeliever who lives in sin. Given this definition of judgment I think it is impossible (or at least a stretch) to extend this prohibition to court proceedings.”
I think this reasoning is exactly why we should not be involved in the legal court system. Because you are no longer judging believers but unbelievers. Especially if we continue to read in 1 Cor 6 and see Paul talking about legal proceedings. By the way, he does say that we will judge the world (but that’s will – future tense – like end of time stuff).
I think we disagree on what it means to “judge”. Your definition seems to be much too simple for me. I sense that it is devoid of function that scripture allows (again, 1 Cor 6 as an example).
“In no place in the Bible is justice condemned, on the contrary it is constantly lauded.” I agree.
And I feel that we should do everything in our power to maintain justice. I just sense that our power is/should be limited.
You said, “In the same way our government does unjust things, but that does not prevent Godly men from working within it and doing good within this system.”
My argument is not that the government does evil things, therefore we should not be apart of the government. Rather, that from my understanding of the Kingdom and my understanding of the World our roles in the government should be very limited.
“For what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?”
God’s Glory,
Lew
Thanks again for the post, I have to say this discussion is definitly challenging my beliefs. And thanks for your thoughtful replies, they always help me come to a greater understanding of what you are saying.
I think you got to the heart of the matter when you said we have different notions of the term ‘judge’. If I understand you correctly you are using the term to mean: to judge one as sinner (or an unsaved person?) or not. From what I understad this is the way Paul uses the term judge in I Corinthians. We should not be judging (or condeming) sinners, but rather trying to a witness to them and allows God to judge them.
I was using the term judge to mean: judgment of an action. We can call agree there is nothing controversial to say that murder is wrong or adultry is a sin for the Bible clearly states that they are. I then used in a legal way to mean: making a decision or informed guess based off of available information (like a jury does).
These types of judgment are not what you had in mind (if I understand you correctly) and not what Paul specifically condemns, yet, nonetheless they could become problamatic. I would agree with that. They are not outright barred, but when we engage in them (specifcally the latter) we are skating on thin ice.
Finally, the verse you ended with: “For what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” has been challenging me for some time. For politics by its very nature does involve a patnership with the darkness.
Nomodiphas,
I agree these discussions are very challenging, not only to you, but to me also. I will be the first to admit that most of the positions I write about are still in their evolution. Although I am usually pretty firm in what I believe and post, I am always open to a challenge (or at least I try to think I am).
Yeah, that verse is a hard one to deal with. It might not be specifically referring to politics, but still it is one we have to think about.
Thanks again for the great comments.
God’s Glory,
Lew