Not a Cover Up

Douglas Wilson and Randy Booth from A Justice Primer:

In a public setting, it is necessary for the accuser to be prepared to prove what he says. In order to that (is this starting to sound familiar?), he must not be anonymous, he must be accountable to a body for his charges (in case they prove deliberate falsehoods), he must have independent confirmation of what he says (2-3 witnesses). If these conditions do not pertain, a church body is prohibited by Scripture from entertaining the charges (I Tim. 5:19). When authorities unsubstantiated charges, they are not covering anything up. They are being obedient. 

Witnesses & Justice

From Douglas Wilson & Randy Booth’s A Justice Primer:

Witnesses must be accountable to the appropriate court, and must be in a position whereby they can be cross-examined. Thus anonymous accusations must be rejected as unsubstantiated and considered not credible…not all witnesses are to be believed…Multiple credible witnesses are required before even receiving an accusation against an elder (I Tim. 5:19)…Malicious false witness violates the ninth commandment and inflicts serious damage on our neighbor. Negligent or careless false witness is also a breaking of the ninth commandment and can have similar effects. Our obligation is to honestly and accurately represent others when we disagree with them, not to assume that we know what they really meant. 

By What Standard?

From Douglas Wilson and Randy Booth’s A Justice Primer:

Autonomy seeks to replace the perfect law of God-which is perfect justice-with our own standards of justice. Justice demands an authority. By what standard will we evaluate fairness? Who will execute or enforce justice? Is this standard and authority infallible? How are the standards to be applied? Who says? These are all inescapable questions. Some standards will be used and some authority will stand behind those standards. The alternatives are limited. Essentially, we can choose between autonomy and theonomy-man’s law or God’s law. One of these standards will be the ultimate authority and arbiter of justice. 

Book Review: A Justice Primer

A Justice PrimerA Justice Primer by Douglas Wilson
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

An excellent overview of what Biblical justice should look like, including discussions of things like witnesses, jurisdiction, authority, church discipline, sexual abuse, internet mobs, evidence, character of witnesses, due process, motives, anonymous witnesses, and taking a Christian brother to court.

It is not scholarly, but more like a lengthy sermon on what Biblical justice looks like with applications to the 21st century. Pastors, elders, deacons, fathers, and mothers could all benefit greatly from the wisdom in this book.

View all my reviews

Biblical Justice Primer: Bearing False Witness

I have already discussed the need for Biblical law and Biblical judges. Now I want to turn to some specific changes that should be made to the American judicial system based on the Scriptures. The first change may seem odd, but I think it is essential.

Listen to the words of Deuteronomy 19:18-20
“And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you. And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you.”

One problem with the American justice system is the failure to punish false witnesses. I would put those who bring frivolous lawsuits in the category of false witness. A man can bring a charge, ruin someone’s reputation, spend thousands of dollars of taxpayer money, and get away free, even if he loses the case and is shown to have lied. I know their are perjury laws, but these do not compare with the Scriptures required punishment for  bearing false witness. The Scriptures place bearing false witness on par with adultery and idol worship. It is not a minor issue to lie about someone’s character or about what they did. Therefore if a case is brought and someone is found to be lying or purposely trying to destroy a company or individually by deceit then whatever they wanted to happen to that company or person should happen to them.

Adopting this policy would do two things. First, it would greatly reduce someone’s desire to bring frivolous lawsuits or to press charges when they are unsure of the other person’s guilt. You are not going to testify against someone unless you are sure of what you are saying.  Two, it would give innocent defendant greater confidence that they will hear a not guilty verdict. When the incentive to lie is taken away the innocent are usually set free.