In ancient Israel, one of the purposes of the Mosaic code was to start putting restraints on the still more ancient practice of blood vengenace. It had been that when a man was killed, a relative of the victim would be “deputized” by his tribe or family to go and execute vengeance. Now clearly, this is the kind of system in which the situation could escalate rapidly out of control.
There were two major “reforms” brought in by Moses that addressed this. The first was the instruction to the magistrate to administer lex talionis. This is the famous “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” system. Now in that context, the most obvious thing about this strict justice was the fact that it was not “life for eye, life for a tooth.” Solomon tells us that “because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Ecc. 8:11). The magistrate was instructed to do his work with scrupulous justice, and in a reasonable amount of time. When justice gets mired in a bureaucratic swamp, you begin to see the stirrings of vigilantism. And when vigilantism takes over, you solve the problems of delay, but the end result is gross injustice. The blood avenger takes out the wrong guy, and a tribal war erupts.
Now, given the sinful inclination of men toward taking matters into their own hands, it is not surprising that by the time of Jesus, the “eye for eye” business had been transformed in the popular mind (as it remains to this day) as a justification for taking personal vengeance. But Jesus draws us back to the original point, as does Paul in the conclusion of Romans 12, and the beginning of chapter 13. Paul does not say that “vengenace is wrong” but rather that it is a prerogative of God’s. “Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord.”
A second major “reform” introduced by Moses was the idea of the city of refuge. As the Israelites settled into the land, certain cities were designated as the cities of refuge. This meant that if someone killed another man accidentally in a logging accident, the one guilty of manslaughter could flee to the city of refuge. The blood avenger system did not acknowledge the nuanced difference between manslaughter and premeditated murder. The one hunted by the blood avenger could go to one of the cities of refuge, where he would be safe.
But suppose the events were disputed? He said it was an accident, and the blood avenger outside the walls said it was deliberate. “If it had been accidental,” might say a reasonable blood avenger, “I would not be here.” The cities of refuge were not to protect murderers.
“But if any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hands of the avenger of blood, that he many die” (Dt. 19: 10-11).
In short, if the man didn’t do it, he could stay. If he did do it, then he was turned over. But this is not settled on the basis of heresay — two verses later, we learn that “one witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity.” Before anybody went turning anybody over, the dispute had to be settled beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now, apply all this to the RC Jr. situation. Serious charges have been leveled against him and his co-workers. They do not agree with the charges, and say that they have not had an opportunity in court to answer the charges. The folks at St. Peter are not ecclesiastical independents, and so they will be seeking out some kind of presbyterial oversight and accountability, a city of refuge. When they do, their story, and their situation will come with them. Whoever they approach (and yes, it could be the CREC) will have the responsibility before God to be scrupulously fair to both sides in the dispute. They will have a responsibility to work closely, charitably, and honorably with the RPCGA. They will have the responsibility to do the same with those who are seeking out oversight and accountability. The ideal outcome would be for everyone involved to extend to everyone else the right hand of fellowship, and then go off to labor in different corners of the Lord’s Vineyard. But whether that ideal outcome can happen will depend on the facts of the case, judiciously and carefully weighed. This sort of thing must be handled by just, calm, deliberate, and honorable men.
In short, not the kind of men who specialize in internet vituperation. Whatever happens, whichever honorable men are sorting through the facts of the case, I’ll bet that no one slaps his forehead and says, “What are we thinking, guys? Going through the tedious facts like this?! We need to find ourselves a couple of scurrilous web sites!” On the up side, it would be lots quicker. On the down side, God hates men like that, and teaches us to sing about them in the psalms. “All day long they twist my words . . .”