That non-involvement in jury service is consistent with the stand expressed concerning joining the armed services, becoming a politician or voting in elections is more clearly seen when one compares the reasons usually given for acting on a jury with the scriptural viewpoint. Some of the reasons usually given by thinking members of the public in support of participating in jury service are as follows:
- It is pointed out that being a member of a jury is one of the highest levels of a good citizen’s activity to ensure that the democratically decided laws for controlling society are obeyed. In addition citizens ought to be involved to ensure that the innocent are not wrongly condemned;
- It is said that Christians with their belief in honesty and justice, are ideally suited to be members of a jury. It is said that the tendency of Christians not to judge others is likely to prevent hastily made or ill-considered judgments and so help to reduce the possibility of wrongful conviction. Christians are less likely to be susceptible to pressure and bribery;
- It is said that if Christians choose not to be involved in jury service they are reducing the effectiveness of the system and of society as a whole. Because of their action the rest of the community must take a heavier load of work and decision making. Christians who avoid jury service are not taking their fair share of responsibility for community welfare and are adopting an impractical and selfish attitude to life;
- It is said that members of a jury have only to decide innocence or guilt and not to determine the consequences of the decision. The penalties have been decided by society as a whole through its laws and it is the role of the judge to interpret these in fixing any sentence resulting from the jury’s decision;
- The argument is put that anyone accused of a serious crime would appreciate a system like that involving a jury and a fair trial. “Why won’t you help others in this way?”
The strength of these arguments rests on a commitment to human government coupled with a lack of understanding of Christ’s teaching.
But what is the teaching of the Bible? What did the Lord Jesus Christ say that might be relevant? Where should allegiance lie? This is the vitally important question for brethren and sisters to answer. The essential matter of allegiance has been introduced already but other significant issues must be considered as well.
It should be noted at the outset that it is not the concept of jury service that is being questioned but the involvement of Christ’s followers in the system. The believer does not question the right of society to use such a system nor whether it is the best yet available to the community but is concerned about participation in it.
What are some of the reasons why a believer would not wish to be involved in jury service?
By acting on a jury a believer identifies himself with the State. A jury is a part of the law enforcement system of the society. A system which consists of the police, the prosecutor and defense representative, the magistrate or judge, the jury, and perhaps even the gaol officials; all of which makes one system. This is a continuum of law enforcement and each part fulfills a role in the whole process. Involvement in part is involvement in the whole; a whole involving activities with which the believer could not, in conscience, be associated.
Paul explained in Hebrews that men like Noah and Abraham “died in faith … having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth” (11:13). They worshipped God, were His servants and gave themselves to Him. Their first obligation was to Him, not to the country in which they lived or to the people around them or the local rulers. Thisis not to say that they fulfilled no responsibilities to those about them, as the Bible clearly shows that they did, but their duty to God came first. They did not join in government with the peoples about them. Those who seek by baptism to become “the seed of Abraham” find themselves expressing the same beliefs and acting in the same way. No divided loyalty is possible.
In Ephesians Paul emphasises the change that comes when believers identify with Christ rather than with the world about them, “Ye are fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (2:19). A new citizenship is created.
Peter very expressively makes the same point. “But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that ye may shew forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; which in time past were no people, but now are the people of God; which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy” (1 Peter 2:9–10). As “the people of God” believers do not seek to be involved in the governing or regulating systems of the community in which they live.
If believers were to follow the scriptural injunction not to pass judgment on other men and women they would be unable to reach a decision as to guilt or innocence when acting as a juror and so would be more likely to impede the course of justice than to assist it.
In Romans one reads, “Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself, for thou that judgest dost practise the same things” (Romans 2:1). The spirit of this passage well matches the spirit of the words of Jesus, “Ye have heard that it was said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you resist not him that is evil, but whosoever smiteth thee on the right cheek turn to him the other” (Matthew 5:38). One might ask how being a part of a law enforcement system, which includes meting out punishment, would fit with these words.
Again, “And if any man would go to law with thee and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also” (v40); and again, “Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away” (v42). Catch the spirit of these words. Do they match the purpose of a court? Whether this is an impractical view of present day society is not the issue. The believer seeks for scriptural principles and is not concerned with deciding whether a man-made society could function using them. The follower of Christ seeks the mind of Christ not the view of a sociologist.
In recording Jesus’ words, Matthew wrote, “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you” (Matthew 7:1). Could believers feel that in a jury they could then decide “guilty”? Consider the problems with the evidence one might hear. Consider the problems the prosecution must have in obtaining first hand evidence, in obtaining all of it, in selecting what is to be presented and then in communicating this to the jury. How difficult it is, well nigh impossible, to really uncover motives. Will decisions be influenced by the skill of the lawyers in putting arguments or casting doubts on evidence? How well can a person evaluate all the complexity of human actions and feel absolutely confident in the decision? There is more than this behind Jesus’ sanction, but even this highlights why human judgment is so susceptible to error.
In Romans Paul wrote, “Bless them that persecute you; bless, and curse not … Render to no man evil for evil … Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me. I will recompense, saith the Lord.” (Romans 12:14,17,19). Compare the attitude conveyed in this Scripture with that of a man-made law enforcement system.
Luke records a relevant incident for consideration, in chapter 12. “And one of the multitude said unto him, Master bid my brother divide the inheritance with me” (v13). Here was a matter of interpretation and implementation of the law, a law Jesus would have known and understood. Jesus replied, “Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?” It is obvious that the man wanted Jesus to become involved in the legal forms of his day but the reply says, in effect, “That is not why I am here, and that is not my role.” The message should be equally plain to followers of Jesus today.
Conclusions
This collection of Scriptures seems to point clearly to two conclusions. Firstly, being advised to refrain from judging, a believer cannot, in conscience, reachany decision about the guilt or innocence of an accused. Such a position is obviously incompatible with jury service. The brother or sister would be a hindrance to a jury performing its appointed function.
Secondly, having an attitude similar to that of his Lord, a believer could not fulfill any role in the law enforcement system and so would find it contrary to his conscience to act on a jury.
A further point, which had been mentioned already, is worth developing.
Because human beings can never know all the facts surrounding an incident it is very difficult to make decisions which are right. All too often judgments are made on the appearance of things which later is discovered to have been misleading. While the court attempts to be fair, it is difficult to feel confidence in one’s decision when the evidence may be incomplete, almost certainly selectively presented, where there is the possibility of perjury and where one’s human fallibility is so apparent. A follower of Christ places himself in a position where he may be involved in a miscarriage of justice.
James wrote, “For he that said, Do not commit adultery, also said, Do not kill. Now if thou dost not commit adultery but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law” (James 2:11). James is pointing out that all breaches of the law make one equally guilty and all men are finally convicted of sin. Because of this, our attitude should not be of passing judgment, but of mercy. “So speak ye, and so do, as men that are to be judged by a law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to him that hath shewed no mercy: mercy glorieth against judgment” (v12,13). Could a brother or sister act on a jury and find someone guilty?
Brethren and sisters look forward to the time of which Isaiah wrote, “And he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: but with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth” (Isaiah 11:3–4).
In looking forward to a time like this one acknowledges that man’s ability to judge is fallible and incomplete, that any human system involving such judgments will be subject to error, that some of the guilty will be acquitted and some of the innocent found guilty. It is only in a divinely guided kingdom that perfect judgment could exist. The world as a whole, neither seeks nor wishes to have divine controls and so human fallibility becomes the measure of justice. Would followers of the Lord Jesus Christ wish to be involved as equals with other members of society in exercising this blindness as members of a jury?
In Corinthians Paul wrote, “For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within, whereas them that are without God judgeth” (1 Corinthians 5:12–13).
Irrespective of the particular situation of which Paul wrote, the general attitude conveyed in this quotation is that brethren and sisters were not to become involved as members of a judicial system outside the ecclesia. It would be necessary for them to assess situations within the ecclesia, done always after prayerful seeking for God’s guidance on all those concerned, but it was not for them to be linked with any external system where this common bond of reverence, prayer and worship did not exist.
There is no doubt that the jury makes a positive contribution to society and one recognises the advantages it brings to the community but we believe that the Scripture clearly teaches that brethren and sisters of the Lord Jesus Christ should not be involved in it.