Tag Archives: A Justice Primer

On Spiraling into Chaos

The trial of George Zimmerman is now over, and there are perhaps a few things we can learn from the whole sorry mess. Perhaps.

In the aftermath of this trial, we clearly have a highly polarized society. On the one hand, we have those who believe that a young and unarmed black man was targeted and killed simply because of his race, and who believe the “not guilty” verdict is therefore a travesty. On the other hand, we have those who believe that he was a young black man up to no good, and that he was the aggressor in his fatal encounter with Zimmerman. They were relieved at the verdict.

The reason we even have trials is so that we have a ordered substitute for what such polarized societies would do in the absence of trials. What they would do is fight, riot and kill. In advanced cases of this pathology, they go to war over such things. The function of trials is to dampen the ardor of factions, crowds, and lynch mobs, not to inflame them. The irony is that Trayvon is now being compared to genuine lynch mob victims, and the comparison is being made by crowds outside the courthouse, away from the evidence presented in a rule-guided setting, but nevertheless demanding the conviction of an individual for political reasons.

That is what a lynch mob is — a large group of people who have not thoughtfully weighed the evidence in a dispassionate setting, but who are consumed with the righteousness of their cause, and who demand a conviction that will consequently satisfy them. Lynch mobs get away with what they do because they are popular. It takes courage to stand up to a lynch mentality, and it takes courage because the current of opinion runs heavily against the accused. When whites were doing this to blacks a few generations ago, it took courage for a white man to stand up to them. Why did it take courage? The same reason it would take courage now. The color of the jerseys can change, but people are always people, and the game is the same one. I draw your attention to a Far Side cartoon that might help us understand this.

Wait Wait Sheep

Whenever someone is tried and acquitted, as Zimmerman has been, it is beyond offensive to continue to orchestrate political pressure in order to keep trying him until we find a venue that will give us the “right answer.” Our double jeopardy protections are there for a good reason, and the right of a convicted man to appeal, while restricting the right of a defeated prosecutor to do so, is grounded in biblical law. It is of the highest order of importance that political passions be kept out of the courtroom.

From the beginning, this sad and unhappy episode was force-fit into a preexisting narrative, and the longer those efforts went, the more lame they became. But because people on both sides don’t always think carefully, some sympathetic to Zimmerman don’t realize that there is a grounded reason for the pent-up frustration. It doesn’t come from nowhere. The fact that this particular incident did not fit the preexisting narrative does not mean that such a narrative is itself mythical. I am confident that many of my black brothers can tell me of numerous times when they were pulled over for “driving while black.” How to handle that kind of thing is the conversation that Al Mohler has never had to have with his son.

For myself, I believe the Zimmerman was kind of hyper, and showed very poor judgment in going out of the house to check on Martin with a loaded gun. But being hyper is not first degree murder, and showing poor judgment is not racism. I am grateful he was acquitted, not because I want him to be the guy to organize and run the Neighborhood Watch where I live, but because I care deeply for the rule of law. Trials matter, and juries should be honored — particularly this jury. I am also grateful that Martin’s parents called for the protests to be peaceful, and I am grateful for that for the same reasons — respect for the rule of law, and a desire to avoid the kind of behavior that will cause us all to spiral into chaos.

Polarized societies want to push toward a simple binary world, where the variables are open and shut, black and white, this or that, our team or their team. But the real world is far more complicated than that. Some have argued that Trayvon would not have aroused Zimmerman’s suspicions in the first place if he had been white. That is quite possible. But I would also argue that he would not have aroused Zimmerman’s suspicions if he had been black, and was walking through that neighborhood in a jacket and tie. And it is equally true that a young white male is fully capable of decking himself out in a way that would arouse the suspicions of every sane person. Skin color is not the only thing going on. You have factors of age, sex, the music pumped out of his car as he pulled up, dress, gang tattoos, behavior . . . and yes, race.

Because of the nature of the question, I am not going to ask for a show of hands here, but I am going to ask you to be brutally honest with yourself. You don’t have to tell anybody how you answered this thought experiment. You are the owner of a jewelry shop in a city, the kind of shop that has bars on the windows, and a buzzer lock to let people in on a case-by-case basis. It is five minutes until closing and a solitary individual shows up at the door. Do you buzz them in? You might say, it depends. Great. On what? Be honest, and whatever your answer is, be sure that you stop condemning others for doing in public what you would do in private.

One of the most insightful tweets I read on this was to the effect that we had a situation where a Hispanic killed a black man, and was acquitted by a jury of all women, and the whole thing is somehow the fault of white men. That is what a cultural breakdown looks like, and that is a threat to all of us.

I Shot the Sheriff . . .

“Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s” (Dt. 1:17)

In an earlier post, on injustice and empathy, a point rose deep in the comments which needs to be bumped to the top.

The point that was raised concerned a possible double standard when it comes to one of “our guys,” someone like C.J. Mahaney, and someone outside our tribe — I know it is au courant to say “tribe” these days, and I am nothing if not au courant — like Joe Paterno and the Penn State scandal. We need to use equal weights and measures (Matt. 7:1). We need to have one standard for all, not one standard of justice for those we know, and another standard of justice for those at a distance. I agree with this point completely.

“Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the Lord” (Prov. 20:10).

This means that if Joe Paterno needs to take the hit simply because he was the head of the organization at the time, that is an understandable principle — but it would apply equally to C.J. Mahaney. But if you want to follow the slower process outlined in the statement issued by Justin Taylor, Kevin DeYoung, and D.A. Carson — as I would urge — then that same judicious spirit should govern us as we are considering scandals like the one at Penn State. We should have equal weights and measures for Sovereign Grace and Penn State.

Does this principle mean that we Christians were being inconsistent when we weighed in on on the Gosnell trial before it was done? Was that an instance of pronouncing sentence before the trial was over? Not at all. The Gosnell situation isn’t comparable because of the nature of the case — Gosnell was a murderer on the basis of his defense. He was a late term abortionist, something that no one denied. There is no injustice in seeing this before the trial. We can assume guilt of some significant magnitude when the defense is, “I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy.”

When the defense is “you have the wrong man entirely,” we need to be careful to avoid all punditry altogether. Wait until the jury comes back into the courtroom, and then we can talk about it. But when the defense is “I swear I thought she was 18,” or “when I shot Smith, I thought I was shooting Murphy,” or “we couldn’t have been robbing the house on Poplar because we were robbing the house on Elm at the time,” we don’t need to be so cautious. We need to reserve judgment, not on everything, but rather on the facts that are under dispute. And any thoughtful Christian should have been able to tell us about the condition of Gosnell’s soul by looking at the ads he had in the yellow pages.

But the basic principle here is an important one — even-handedness — and applies whether we are talking about our friends or our enemies.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , ,

Injustice and Empathy

Don Carson, Kevin DeYoung, and Justin Taylor have posted a very good statement about the Sovereign Grace lawsuit here. I appreciated it very much.

The issue — among thoughtful Christians — should never be whether or not justice should be done. That should be a given. What should we seek out, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God? (Micah 6:8)

The issue is that we do not know what the just response is until after a fair and just trial. Just sentences do not fall out of the sky — they proceed from just trials. And in order to have a just trial, it must be managed and conducted by just men, men who hate bribes, men who have a backbone, men who know the law.

If a man is accused of child molestation, a horrendous crime, and charges are made and the evidence is being gathered, then patience is absolutely necessary. If a judge is ruled by the spirit of Prov. 18:17, and he is proceeding with all deliberation, and then he finds himself accused of covering up misdeeds, or enabling such crimes, or being soft on molestation, simply because he did not move straight to the sentencing, then we know that the spirit of injustice is on the loose.
Continue reading

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: , ,

Feeling Like a Confrontation

One of the ways we have allowed egalitarianism to flatten everything can be seen in how we apply trial procedures to everything (to everything that is, except those situations when actual trial procedures would actually be called for).

Determining that somebody is a security risk is not the same thing as finding them guilty of treason. Voting no on somebody for the elder board because you don’t quite trust them with the responsibility is not the same thing as bringing charges. Saying no to a suitor because he is not tall enough is not the same thing as condemning him for being short. Picking out chocolate is not to find fault with vanilla. These are all entirely different issues. But we flatten these issues, and thus we confuse ourselves.

Sometimes you decline to pick somebody for leadership, not because there are any character questions at all, but rather because you simply believe they are not equipped for the job. If some boys are playing sandlot football, and three boys who really wanted to be picked for quarterback are not picked, we ought not pay any attention to the subsequent complaint that Matthew 18 was not followed. They were not picked because they don’t have an arm, as everybody knows. It is as simple as that. Or rather, it would be as simple as that if those three boys were able to read the situation rightly, if they had learned how not to think of themselves more highly than they ought (Rom. 12:3).

Continue reading

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

Psychological Mint, Feelings Dill, Emotional Cummin

Jesus taught us to deal with the big stuff first. He said that the weightier matters of the law took precedence. The Pharisees of His day had justified their neglect of such things by making a big deal over how they tithed out of the spice rack. Look at us go, they seemed to say. Jesus didn’t fault them for that practice, but rather faulted them for substituting their very thin slices of obedience for the thick ones. Slice it both ways, Jesus said.

Over the years I have noticed a tendency to try to solve convoluted problems with an appeal to a psychological spice rack. This happens in counseling, and it happens with people trying to work through controversies and big snarls. Suppose a man snuck over to his neighbor’s house in the middle of the night in order to shoot his dog. Suppose further that the dog-owner was a big personality who hardly ever let other people get a word in edgewise, who was an obnoxious bore at dinner parties, and who picked his teeth in an unsightly manner. When the whole story came tumbling out, the tendency I have noticed is that of trying to flatten the whole story so that there can be “faults on both sides.” A theory of moral equivalence takes over, one that is manifestly unjust. “Yes, on the one hand, he shot your dog, which, frankly, he should have left undone. But you have to recognize that sometimes you made him feel awkward with your offers to share a toothpick.”

This is one of the deep tendencies of liberalism — that of flattening everything. In the days of the Cold War, the consumerist manufacture of dumb trinkets in the West was put on a level with the gulags. The same thing happens with crime — somebody shoots somebody in the inner city over a pair of sneakers and we get lectures about the societal “root causes” of crime. Somehow the root causes of crime never seemed to include the criminal. This is ethical analysis of mint, dill and cummin, one which ignores the fact that an anarchist blew the spice store up, killing eleven.

Continue reading

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

I Hope He Takes My Call!

Some weeks ago, I did some protestantial hooting about an upcoming encyclical from the pope on global warming. According to an informed source, my post has apparently caused some ongoing consternation among some of our Catholic friends. Although I have promised a handsome apology if it turns out the pope actually thinks that global warming is a boatload of hooey, some think this is inconsistent on my part. Since I don’t want to cause any unnecessary heartburn, here is a brief explanation.

What if, the argument goes, someone said that they read some newspaper account saying Wilson is a racist, and they believed it. But, they say, if proof to the contrary is produced, they promise to apologize handsomely, just like me apologizing to the pope. Isn’t that the same situation as my comments about the pope? No, but it is at least a reasonable question. What is the difference then?

The article I was using as the basis for my comments was a positive article, favorably citing the pope for his courage in coming out for the environment. Now it is possible that the pope takes the same view of global warming that I do, to wit that the whole whipped-up frenzy is a bunch of statist malarkey, and this positive article was running in an attempt to pressure the pope, to get him back into line somehow. If that turns out to be the case, my apology to the pope (and I hope he takes my call!) would be for that – but not for accepting a slander about him.

To make the situations parallel, suppose someone wanted to pressure me in the direction of the Approved Multiculturalism, and so the resultant newspaper article did not accuse me of racism, but rather praised me for my recently announced and broad-minded decision to celebrate Kwanzaa this year instead of Christmas. This was a courageous move on Wilson’s part, the paper said, sure to irritate his former neo-confederate cronies, and so forth. Now if someone believed this article praising me (falsely), that would be quite a different thing than accepting a slanderous accusation.

Now it is true that I accepted a newspaper account praising the pope for bringing his influence to bear on the crisis of global warming. If that turns out to be a false report, and the pope would actually be insulted by the idea that he was so foolish as to believe that global warming was a real crisis, then I will apologize to him for accepting that praise offered by the newspaper, which in reality was an insult.

I am a Protestant to the back teeth, but that doesn’t make Pius XII “Hitler’s pope.” When people bring their slanders about such things, Proverbs 18:17 applies regardless of whether I am Protestant or not. I should not pass the evil report on, and then try to get off the hook by promising to apologize if it turns out to be false. But if I read a newspaper article that says that the pope dedicated a shrine to the Black Madonna somewhere in Europe, and I accept this report, I am not receiving a slander “without checking,” even if I consider shrines to Black Madonnas a very bad thing. Now this doesn’t make the report necessarily true, but it does mean that it is not slander for me to accept it.

Many of us get information from Drudge. When I read there that Gore was given the Nobel Prize, I didn’t have to go check the truth of the report myself. If I read there that Britany got married again, there is nothing wrong with just accepting the report. But when I read that Sen. Craig was accused of soliciting sexual favors in an airport restroom, and he denied it, I didn’t have any business accepting the news accounts until I saw Craig’s guilty plea. The same reticence does not have to apply if I were to read a positive article about an out-of-the-closet homosexual in Congress. What Craig takes as slander, Barney Frank would not.

Now suppose your local newspaper had a special “Gay Pride” edition, highlighting all the important homosexuals in your area. Suppose further that they had a special sidebar feature on somebody, but they put the wrong photo and name in the article, and suppose further that you read it, and think to yourself — “Huh. I didn’t know that Mayor Smith was gay.” The report was erroneous, and apologies are called for, especially from the paper, but it would not be receiving a slander for me to think (for 24 hours or so) that Mayor Smith was a homosexual. My basis for thinking so would be the same as for thinking Elton John is.

So, bringing this full circle, I would be insulted if someone accused me of believing in the global warming hype. But I would not be slandered if someone believed that of me based on a positive report about me in a newspaper. Once my stern letter to the editor appeared, and the person who believed falsely that I was so foolish apologized to me for thinking I was capable of doing that, I would be glad to accept the apology — especially if it were offered handsomely.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

No Mas

As some may know, I have had a link to the Little Geneva website under the Moonbats category, and which I had labeled as “Clever Zionist Tricks.” I am now removing that link because it appears as though the website has folded.

Whatever the reason, I am grateful that the number of attack web sites has now gone down by at least one. There have been some connections and affinities between these sites (Seabrook, Vance, Metzler, et al), and so this may have a broader effect as well. Let’s hope so. The author of the site also stated that he wants to live at peace with his neighbor in the next phase of his life. I wish him well in that effort.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

To Get the Chimps Jumping?

When accusations are brought against anyone, it is crucial for all potential participants, witnesses, or observers to think of the matter biblically. This is because it is perilously easy to fall into that species of do-goodism that wants to uproot the tares, but that kind of do-goodism is at root diabolical.

This is true of accusations of private wrong-doing (e.g. embezzlement) and accusations of public heresy. I have already shown that the two need to be handled differently, according to Scripture. The first should be handled by the elders of the people, who conduct a careful investigation (Dt. 19). The second, as a public matter, should be handled as a public matter in public view. Jesus said to ask the people what He taught. But even with this difference acknowledged, there is still a common element in both situations that everyone should be aware of.

First, we need to see that — from Genesis to Revelation — the godly prosecutor has a paucity of role models. The overall theme of the Scripture is that the true conservatives are the falsely accused; it is one of the great ironies of our day that ostensible conservatives want to earn their gunslinging stripes by accusing. Think of it: Abel accused by Cain, Joseph accused by his brothers and by Potipher’s wife, David accused by Saul, Jeremiah accused by the court prophets, and of course, the Lord Jesus accused by the Sanhedrin. Where in Scripture is the theme of the zealous accuser who wants to root out some troublemaker? There are some — Joshua with Achan, or Josiah and the idolators of Israel. But the words Satan and devil (with their deep connotations of adversarial accusation) are attached where they are for a reason.

This is no argument against church government, or lawful church discipline. It is merely a cautionary note — those who have been entrusted with authority in the church need to take as their top priority an ecclesiastical version of the Hippocratic oath — “first, do no harm.” Those who bring charges lawfully need to do so with fear and trembling, and with a profound awareness of how often charges have been brought in the course of Scripture, and in the history of the Church, by those who thought they were serving God.

The great Puritan Thomas Watson said that it is better to be wronged than to do wrong. It is not a sin to be wronged. Those who are in a position to do wrong (with authority) need to make a point of going the extra mile to put this understanding into practice. The Lord Jesus said that all manner of blasphemy against Him would be forgiven (Matt. 12:31-32), but that the sin against the Holy Spirit would not be. In my mind this means that those who in their calling and vocation are representing the Lord Jesus (ministers) ought to be like the Lord in this. This is why in our practice we have disciplined those who have abandoned their spouses, for example, but have been very slow to discipline those who rail against us. God sees, and He will sort that kind of thing out.

There are some who are distressed on our behalf over the lies that are being told about us. There are web sites out there dedicated to little else. If lies about what we have been doing and saying were liquid, these sites would be overflowing and standing in the slop. But this is just part of the cost of doing business. Jesus said to expect it, to rejoice when it happened, and I believe the tenor of Scripture requires those in spiritual authority to take care that they not react in a manner that makes the accusations retroactively true. False accusations of tyranny could provoke a man into tyranny.

The last thing in the world that elders and pastors should want is the perception that they are using the apparatus of justice to sandbag their own position. Church discipline should be obviously the kind of thing that has the health of the whole body in mind. Now because of the overarching theme of the Bible, and because of the great moral force of Christ’s example on the cross, this explains why, in our contemporary disputes, everyone needs to be the accused. This is where playing the victim comes from. The victims of course want to be the victims, which is their right. There are true victims. But prosecutors, persecutors, slanderers, lie-mongers, accusers, and all their cousins also need to be the victim. This explains why, if someone lies about me, and I laugh at it, in their minds I have committed a mortal offense against public decency. My sympathies go out to these people — it is really hard to be the accuser and the victim at the same time.

Now the occasion for writing all this is the examination of Steve Wilkins that is currently underway in the PCA. I have said, and I continue to say, that what is most necessary here is for as many people as possible to acquaint themselves with what Steve has been teaching. If they read through some stuff a couple years ago, they should refresh themselves on it. They should settle in their own minds whether Steve, when he says that he affirms the Westminster doctrine of election, is affirming the Westminster doctrine of election. Having done this, they should pray that the Louisiana Presbytery will make a godly and wise decision, and then, that the Standing Judicial Commission will make a godly and wise decision in letting that decision stand.

Some might object that I am trying to queer the results here, trying to gather a mob outside the courthouse, trying to run my stick across the bars to get the chimps jumping. Not at all. As Paul said to Agrippa, these things were not done in a corner. I was at the notorious Auburn Avenue conferences. Steve is a friend, and I know what he teaches. I know what I believe and teach, and I know how ignorant and irresponsible people have misrepresented those beliefs and teachings. The people bringing their accusations against Steve are guilty of the same kind of misunderstandings and misrepresentations. I know what the truth in this situation is, and I know this on the basis of information that is publicly available. I am not reporting here from “inside.” This is all on the table.

Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church sought permission from the Lousiana Presbytery to post Steve’s written answers, along with the audio. They received that permission. The fact that the information is public is not controversial; it is out there with everyone’s blessing. Reading through this material, or listening to the audio, is not to side with Steve or his accusers. It is to acquaint yourself with what is going on, and when you do this, you are in a position to do so as a friend of justice.

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,