The jury selection process
We never used to be “summoned” to appear at a local court house with the legal obligation to perform jury service. Potential jurors were always chosen from the voter registration lists and, as Christadelphians never voted, we were spared the inconvenience of being called for jury duty. Even in cases of a brother or sister who had recently come into the Truth, and who formerly participated in the political process, a simple letter to the jury selection clerk would suffice. In some areas, understanding courts supplied letters which Christadelphians could use to facilitate being excused. But that has all changed. Today in most court districts in the United States there are almost no standard excuses acceptable, and the only one who has the authority to excuse anyone is the judge himself. This means we must:
- show up promptly,
- sit with the other 50 people who make up the pool from which the jurors will be selected, and
- listen to the judge extolling the benefits of living in a free democracy, with a system designed to provide everyone a fair trial, while complimenting everyone for their good citizenship.
While all this is going on, we are looking for the opportunity to explain to the judge our reason for being excused.
This can be awkward, and standing up in front of a group of people to explain our position can be embarrassing. Part of the awkwardness is inherent in the process. The procedures are not uniform from one court to the next. Before you know it, you may find yourself in the courtroom being sworn in with the entire group of prospective jurors. Then you are being introduced to the lawyers for the prosecution and the defense in preparation for the jury selection process. Here the lawyers may question each juror as to suitability. After hours of sitting around the jury pool waiting room, everything is now moving extremely fast. It is beginning to look like you are going to be in the jury box before you can explain your position. Some have had to interrupt the proceedings, raise their hands and, when acknowledged by the judge, state their requests. It can be difficult.
What should you say?
Should you write out your position, along with Scriptural references?
It is doubtful you will have a chance to present anything in writing to the judge beforehand. However, writing your position out is an excellent way to organize your own thoughts. In thinking through our position and what to say, we should be careful not to lose sight of the forest for the trees.
Jury duty, serving on a town council, voting, and military service are all trees in the same forest. Whether it is voting for the president of the nation or in a school bond issue, serving in the military in wartime or being a policeman, it is all of a piece. We may think of each of these services as a tree; taken together, they make up the forest of government. We have to be careful when we examine a single tree, or else we find ourselves explaining our position in a way that may be turned against us. Unlike the often hard-to-see relationship between some of our decisions and their effects on others, the lack of a consistent stand by some in our brotherhood can compromise the position of others, especially those of our young men if the draft should be reinstated.
The Christadelphian position
Our position is simple. We are not to be involved in the things of this world, and there is nothing that is more “of this world” than participating in its governing and defense. This position is a 180-degree change from that of the Israelites in Old Testament times. They were citizens in a nation of the world, and were expected to contribute toward its functioning. But this came to an end, and true Christians were seen as having no worldly nation, but rather being citizens of the coming Kingdom of God. Just as we believe the Mosaic institutions surrounding the Law and the sacrifices were done away with by Christ’s teachings and example, so also we believe his teachings instruct his followers to abstain from participation in the governments of this world during these times.
Jesus’ prayer sets forth both his and our relationship to this world:
“I have given them thy word and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:14-16).
Jury duty is a form of participation in the functioning of this “world”, specifically the courts of the country and the application of its laws.
Shortly after this prayer, Jesus stood before Pilate:
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, than would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from here” (John 18:36).
From a purely human standpoint, if ever there were a just cause, fighting to deliver the only sinless man who ever lived from a crooked court and an unjust verdict would certainly qualify. And the time will come, at Jesus’ return, when fighting at his command will be proper, as it was when God so instructed during the Mosaic age. Wars are not justified by the reasoning of men (who seem able to justify all wars, at least at the outset), but by God’s commands. The current “kingdom” in which we live, whenever and wherever it may be, is not Jesus’ kingdom now, nor can it be ours.
In his Olivet discourse Jesus, our true king, referred to these days as the “times of the Gentiles”. These times will have to run their course until they are finished: “And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive unto all nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (Luke 21:24).
Ultimately the kingdoms of this world are going to gather together to fight against Jesus:
“For I saw the spirit of demons, working miracles, that go forth unto the kings of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty” (Rev 16:14).
Imagine being a Christadelphian in a country that is sending young people off to that war!
The whole tenor of Jesus’ teaching, in both example and words, is incompatible with being part of any government in this world. Try reconciling the principles stated in the platforms of the major political parties with the Sermon on the Mount. Can you imagine the apostles campaigning for office? No candidates can suggest their party adopt principles that espouse the qualities of meekness and turning the other cheek.
Nor do we suggest that governments can effectively function during these times with those principles. In fact, we believe that when Jesus returns he will rule with a rod of iron. The human condition can only be governed under a strong hand. What we do believe is that Jesus has called men and women to come out of this world and live as he lived, while leaving the governing of this world’s affairs now to those who wish to do so.
Cautions about certain verses
We differ with mainstream Christianity in our understanding of many basic doctrines; however, it can be a mistake to think that no one else knows the Bible. There are many sincere Christians in North America, more and more of whom are being exposed to Bible study groups in their churches. They can be serious about both their Christianity and their service to their country. The following are three examples of Scripture passages we have heard brethren cite in defense of our positions. We suggest that they are not the best responses for the following reasons:
- Regarding jury duty: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt 7:1). Quoting this verse as a reason for not being able to serve on a jury can cause a problem. In response, our interviewer might quote John 7:24: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” When I asked to be excused because of my religious beliefs, the judge asked me if it was because I would not be able to deliver a judgment. I said I probably would not do so, but that my reasons were based on broader principles regarding non-participation in government. I did not want to get into a debate about the single “tree” of “judging”. I knew the judge could say that all I needed to do was weigh the evidence and deliver an “opinion”, and that he would hand down the actual judgment. I was also concerned about the possible fine points between a “civil” case and a “criminal” case.
- Regarding voting: “The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men” (Dan 4:17). The point of citing this verse is that, since God decides whom to put in power, I would be wrong to express my opinion because I might find myself voting against God! Therefore I should not participate in this process. A problem with using this passage is that the righteous Daniel, when he made this statement, was a key participant in a worldly kingdom, as was Joseph before him. Joseph, and probably Daniel, had the authority and responsibility to sit in governing counsels and make decisions involving incarceration and, we may assume, capital punishment as well. We must remember that our position today is based particularly on Jesus’ teachings, and not just the Old Testament.
- Regarding military service, police, jury duty, etc.: “Thou shalt not kill” (Exod 20:13). This has sometimes been referred to as the reason Christadelphians cannot serve in the military or police or agree with the death penalty. But this passage presents a problem, both from the Hebrew and the context. The root word “ratsach” (Strong’s 7523) is only translated “kill” twice, “killed” once, and “killing” once in the Old Testament and always in the context of murder. The Jewish Old Testament English translation in the Soncino Pentateuch translates the word in Exodus 20:13 as “murder”. Strong’s defines the word as meaning “especially to murder”. We know that, contextually, the sixth commandment was not an absolute prohibition against killing, since the Law of Moses required that the death penalty be exacted in certain specified crimes.
Again, in contrast to the above approaches and some other “easy fixes”, our position is best set forth in the context of Jesus’ teachings that we are to be separate from this world and its current governments.
Early Christians in regard to their governments
The Christadelphian position in respect to governments is the same as it was in the earliest Christian communities. The following is a quote from Gibbon’s Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire (Harcourt, Brace and Company, p. 288): “The primitive Christians derived the institution of civil government, not from the consent of the people, but from the decrees from heaven. The reigning emperor, though he had usurped the scepter by treason and murder, immediately assumed the character of vice regent of the Deity. To the Deity alone he was accountable for the abuse of his power; and his subjects were indissolubly bound by their oath of fidelity to a tyrant who had violated every law of nature and society. The humble Christians were sent into the world as sheep among wolves; and since they were not permitted to employ force even in the defense of their religion, they should be still more criminal if they were tempted to shed the blood of their fellow-creatures in disputing the vain privileges or the sordid possessions of this transitory life. Faithful to the doctrines of the apostle, who in the reign of Nero had preached the duty of unconditional submission, the Christians of the three first centuries preserved their conscience pure and innocent of the guilt of secret conspiracy or open rebellion. While they experienced the rigor of persecution, they were never provoked either to meet their tyrants in the field, or indignantly to withdraw themselves into some remote and sequestered corner of the globe.” [My emphasis]
The practice of Christians becoming full partners with government was institutionalized under Constantine in the fourth century. It was one of many doctrines that became corrupted along the way.
Reconciling obedience to authorities with God’s commands
How do we reconcile the Scriptural passages, those that teach obedience to the law, with our apparent unwillingness to obey the law by serving on jury duty and in the military?
We need to reconcile Scriptures which instruct us to obey our governing authorities (e.g., Rom 13:1-7) with the quandaries we can face now. How do we refuse to obey the authorities when they command us to do something opposed to Scripture? This can be quite difficult, and it can require personal courage.
The specific situations may sometimes be unclear in our minds. Fortunately, the general principle we must follow has been clearly set forth by the apostles. When the Sanhedrin forbade them to preach about Jesus Christ, they gave a clear, unequivocal answer:
“But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye” (Acts 4:19).
Scripture and our own experience teach us that there are times when a law will conflict with Bible teaching. The instruction to obey those who have the rule over us is not an absolute. For example, God has said homosexuality is wrong, while increasingly the governments in North America are supporting the position that it is not wrong, but merely different. Some of us who are school teachers may find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of being asked to teach a position on this subject which is opposed to God’s teachings.
As for another example, God has given us all clear instructions about disciplining our children:
“He that spareth the rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him early” (Prov 13:24).
“Withhold not correction from the child; for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from Sheol [the grave]” (Prov 23:13,14).
However, the tendency of government to overreact in the pursuit of the goal to protect children from abuse, which is itself laudable, may put us in the position of having to decide whether to obey God or man.
The importance of Christadelphians being consistent
It is easier for our conduct toward the world to be consistent when we keep all the “trees” in perspective and always remember they are all part of the same “forest”. If we find ourselves living in another country, the fact that we are not “of this world” with regard to most of these “trees” becomes plainer. No one votes in one country when he or she is the legal citizen of another. We in Canada and the United States enjoy freedom from religious persecution, to a degree virtually unheard of in the past. But if one day the wind blows from another direction, then consistency will stand us in good stead. Our boat can be sailing very nicely at a good clip, but we always need to pay close attention to what the wind might do next. If we are caught off guard by a sudden gust from another direction, the boom can swing around violently, hit us in the head and knock us overboard. We need to keep one eye on the direction of the political “winds” at all times.
This was very important in the past when the military draft was in force. Where some religious organizations had a known, consistent position of requesting conscientious objection status and performing alternate service in mental hospitals and forest fire fighting, etc., their young men were often quickly approved. Being sentenced to jail for the duration of a war, with that on your record for life, may seem like an unlikely prospect today. But it might not be in the future. And in other countries our young brothers face extreme tests in this regard. Christadelphians in North America organized themselves to present a unified position to their governments in the past, and a few brothers have made it their business to continue to stay abreast of current events in this area. The draft may be reinstated sooner than we think. The current limited engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are on an extremely small scale compared with World War II, for example, are straining the capability of the armed forces to meet their voluntary recruitment needs at this time.
Consistency in less well-defined activities
There was a time, not too long ago, when our young men had to:
go to the local post office when they turned 18,
- ask for the registration form for the draft board,
- fill it out,
- submit it, and then
- face a five-man board of volunteers in their own community (some of whom were devout churchgoers), where they had to defend their request for conscientious objection status, both Scripturally and by their previous conduct.
If we knew we had to do this again, we would all be taking this matter very seriously. We should, for example, be keeping records of attendance at meetings. This could document a consistent pattern of behavior if the need should arise to prove it.
We could be using Sunday schools, or CYC classes, to be sure that our young brothers (and sisters) are Scripturally prepared to stand up to any investigations or questions. For all of us, there are many other questions — perhaps less well-defined and upon which we may have differing opinions — but questions nonetheless, about which we could at least think among ourselves, or perhaps individually. Some examples:
- Are we continuing to examine our thinking about pledging allegiance to the flag?
- Do we sing the national anthem?
- What do we think about playing or marching in school bands that perform at patriotic functions?
- Do we participate in the quasi-military activities of such organizations as Boy Scouts?
Our “water cooler” conversations, and respect for others
While we were still in the jury pool room, and before we could ask the judge to be excused, the clerk came in and told us there were two trials for which jurors would be selected from the pool that day. One would be a typical three or four-day case, but the other might run for 20 days. Our names would be called first for the 20-day trial and we should respond as to whether or not we could serve that long. If we could not, we should go up to Window #1 and give our reasons. If those reasons were accepted, then we should return to the pool to be in the jury for the shorter trial. If we could serve, we should go up to Window #2 and receive our instructions. One by one those called responded, and most said they could not serve that long. One woman responded, “Yes”; we all looked at her and saw she was very old and very frail. Carefully she rose from her chair; as she started to walk towards the window she turned to the rest of us and said, “I’m 84; I hope I can make it to the end of the trial.” The whole room erupted in laughter. But I thought: if she ended up being selected by the lawyers, she was making a huge sacrifice for her community.
Our neighbors are being called upon to make big sacrifices in service to the community in which we live. And some of them see it as very much their Christian duty, as well as their civic duty. When I think about what I have done for my neighbors, I can’t really think of much. I have never given three or four full days to help out, and there are areas of need that are not opposed to God’s teachings. Twenty full days away from work and pay is a big sacrifice. In fact, for that matter I don’t recall ever giving 20 consecutive days of service to my ecclesia.
Our comments and behavior, as it relates to perceived inadequacies and injustices in the legal system, and in politicians and the political process, should be minimal and respectful. There are some sincere Christians, who hold beliefs with which we disagree, who nevertheless are trying to the best of their abilities to reconcile their beliefs in the course of implementing the governing process. It would be wrong to think they do not have battles of conscience in some of the situations they deal with.
We should not be critical of those who rule over us, or join in the ridicule at the water cooler that may be the current conversation when a political scandal erupts. It is always unfitting to criticize the work of others when we do not pitch in ourselves — regardless of the reasons.
We would like others to respect the sincerity of our position. We do not like to be considered “cowards” because we will not serve in the military, or “parasites” who benefit from the hard work of others while we will not help with that work. For the most part, people with sincere, consistent religious beliefs in these areas are treated respectfully in North America. We would do well to treat others as we ourselves would like to be treated.
Kings and priests in training
Isn’t it odd? We are undergoing a training or probation process in order to become kings and priests. The vision of the Kingdom Age speaks in the past tense, although referring to the future:
“And [he] hath made us unto our God kings and priests, and we shall reign on the earth” (Rev 5:10).
In some ways, we are a government in exile, waiting for the coming of our king, when he will call us to active service. Yet one of the principles of our training is to refrain from participating in governing and priestly functions in the present institutions of this world. We work in and guide our ecclesias, but we do not rule them in the sense that governments rule. Our king has no interest in most of what is involved in governing during this dispensation.
We abstain from participation in government now — even when we know it to be a necessity that such governments function. In this, we do well to remember that we are truly living by faith, every day.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One