Justifiable Bridges? Pondering Avenues of Justice and Approbation of an Impartial Public.
I am grateful for Dr. James Bruce’s article, “Of Atheists and Oaths”.
His development of the value of oaths, how they must be in the name of God,
invoking God as witness and judge, is vital. In an era when oath-taking and
vow-making has become increasingly meaningless, Bruce’s commentary and critique
is helpful for Christ’s people. Oaths and vows are important. Don’t make them
lightly.
The purpose of my short article is not to criticize Dr.
Bruce’s statement. Rather, since he was at our 50th General Assembly
and publicly made an abbreviated version of his comments during a specific
debate, I thought I would launch off from his comments to the issue of that particular
discussion.
Quick Background
Briefly, there was an Overture that came to our denomination
(the Presbyterian Church in America) desiring to allow atheists to be able to
testify in our church courts when there is a discipline case. This particular
Overture was responded to “in the negative” by our Overtures Committee (OC). That
means, the OC wanted it voted down. But a significant minority of the OC, if I
recall rightly some 40-plus signatories, petitioned the General Assembly to
approve the Overture. Thus ensued an hour-long debate on the floor of the
General Assembly, evenly moderated by one of the best moderators in recent
memory. It was as I was listening to the debates for and against the Overture,
I began contemplating the issue and the concerns from both sides.
Legitimate Boundaries
Dr. Bruce has strongly stated one of the reasons why the
Overture was voted down, as it was presented. I grasp the concerns he raised,
and I affirm them. Our church courts do have a responsibility to do what they
can to seek truth and execute justice and mercy. I further affirm that a “church
court must not be ashamed of God’s name, or a shame to it.” I have no beef with
Dr. Bruce’s point(s), well made.
Justifiable Bridges?
Yet, while I listened to the debate, two basic thoughts
crystallized in my mind that go beyond Bruce’s article. The first has to do
with avenues of God’s justice from outside into God’s house. The second relates
to actions of ecclesiastical discipline that derive some moral force from the
“approbation of an impartial public” (Book of Church Order, Preliminary
Principle 8).
Avenues of Justice
By avenues of God’s justice from outside into God’s house, I
mean something very simple. God cares about outsiders, those outside of his
people, those outside of the boundaries of his household. And he wants them to
have a taste of the fairness of his justice.
For example, as Yahweh is describing the qualities he wants
his people to exhibit as they enter the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, he says:
[12] And now, Israel, what does the
LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his
ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all
your soul, [13] and to keep the commandments and statutes of the LORD, which I
am commanding you today for your good? [14] Behold, to the LORD your God belong
heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. [15] Yet
the LORD set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after
them, you above all peoples, as you are this day. [16] Circumcise therefore the
foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.
Yahweh makes distinctions between his household, his people,
and those outside, But then he brings his own character into the picture:
[17] For the LORD your God is God
of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is
not partial and takes no bribe. [18] He executes justice for the fatherless
and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. [19] Love
the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.
[20] You shall fear the LORD your God. You shall serve him and hold fast to
him, and by his name you shall swear. [21] He is your praise. He is your God,
who has done for you these great and terrifying things that your eyes have
seen. [22] Your fathers went down to Egypt seventy persons, and now the LORD
your God has made you as numerous as the stars of heaven. (Deuteronomy 10:12-22,
I’ve added the underlining MWP)
It’s there, as the LORD brings his own character into the
picture, he lays out the place of showing no partiality, taking no bribes, and
executing love and justice toward those who are easily victimized and violated
(fatherless and widows), and to extend these toward sojourners (outsiders,
non-members of his household). The heart of this requirement is the gospel
reminder that God’s people were once sojourners who didn’t receive love or
justice from the gods of Egypt or the religious and political courts of
Pharoah. Remembering where they came from, they were to open up love and justice
to those in their midst who are non-citizens of the kingdom, non-members of the
church.
Part of extending love toward the sojourners, those outside,
seems to be providing them avenues of God’s justice inside the house of God,
where there will be no partiality, and where God’s people swear by God’s name.
It doesn’t mean that sojourners (non-Israelites) had authority in the church
courts, simply that the avenue for justice was open to them.
It may appear to be a little stretch because of the brevity
of this article, but that seems to me to be part of the point behind Paul’s
qualification for elders and overseers: “Moreover, he must be well thought of
by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil”
(1 Timothy 3:7). How can the church know if an overseer is well thought of by
outsiders unless outsiders, atheist or agnostic or whatever, have some avenue
to speak into our church courts. Again, they have no authority, but are simply given
an avenue for justice in God’s house that is open to them. Which brings me to
my second thought regarding the commendation of an impartial public as part of
the church’s moral authority.
Approbation of an Impartial Public
In our denomination’s Book of Church Order (BCO), a
procedural manual on how to conduct business and discipline cases, there are
eight preliminary principles. The final one states that our ecclesiastical
discipline (which includes actions by church courts) “must be purely moral or
spiritual in its object…it can derive no force whatever, but from its own justice,
the approbation of an impartial public, and the countenance and blessing of the
great Head of the Church.”
The force or potency of our decisions are to be able to show
themselves consistently just, and in someway receive the approval of an
impartial public and our Lord Jesus. I find these criteria are in accord with
sacred Scripture in ways we don’t normally consider.
For example, as Paul addresses the way we’re to engage with
others, both inside and outside the church, he directs us, “Repay no one evil
for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all” (Romans
12:17). To do what is honorable in the sight of all, whether they are pagan
neighbors or Christian family.
Paul says something similar a bit later when he describes
how Christians are to be graciously interacting with each other, even when we
disagree. And then he drops in this rationale, “Whoever thus serves Christ is
acceptable to God and approved by men” (Romans 14:18).
The final observation in this regard that I want to make comes
up when Paul is talking about raising funds for mercy work in Jerusalem. He
explains how he has representatives from various churches accompanying him
while he collects the monies. These representatives not only provided security
against banditos, but they would have provided accountability to ensure all the
money arrived. And so, Paul states, “We take this course so that no one should
blame us about this generous gift that is being administered by us, for we aim
at what is honorable not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of man”
(2 Corinthians 8:20-21). We aim to do what is honorable in the eyes of our Lord
and of our fellow man. These passages appear to be the biblical backbone to our
BCO’s eighth preliminary principle.
Conclusion
Therefore, in some way, there are to be avenues of God’s
justice for those outside to inside the house of God. And we should do things,
especially in regard to ecclesiastical discipline that “derive no force
whatever, but from its own justice, the approbation of an impartial public, and
the countenance and blessing of the great Head of the Church.” This means, of
course, working out ways to fairly and impartially allow people who have been
wronged by one of God’s people, or a congregation of God’s people, to gain some
justice. That means we will need to hammer out some type of opportunity – a mechanism
or procedure – for them to raise concerns to our courts (when necessary), and
possibly testify, whether they are atheists or agnostics or whatever. The
details of how that can be done are what we must work out.
These were some of my musings during that debate. Clearly,
more needs to be said, and more needs to be thought through, by me and my
fellow pastors and elders in our denomination of Christ’s church.
Pastor Michael Philliber
Comments