Trying To Think “Christianly” About the Kavanaugh Drama

Trying To Think “Christianly” About the Kavanaugh Drama

By Richard Terrell
September 24, 2018

I participate in a morning prayer and discussion group which is presently reading through Harry Blamires’s 1963 book The Christian Mind. The author exhorts Christians to recover a distinctive way of thinking, in and through Christian/biblical premises, about human society. He warns, at one point, of the temptation of Christians to respond to current political issues solely in terms of party preferences rather than any principles that define a Christian worldview.

These exhortations come to mind in the current arm-wrestling over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the position of Supreme Court justice.  Here, I will try to lay out some questions that a Christian might ask about all this, in view of principles set forth in the Bible. The logic of this is that, inasmuch as we assert a biblical worldview, and inasmuch as the Bible has had a key role in shaping our civilization’s concepts of civil law and justice, it is all relevant to our thinking in this particular matter.

First, we must recognize that the Bible takes witness, and false witness, very seriously. Here are some applicable citations:

Exodus 20:16 — “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
Proverbs 19:5 — “A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who utters lies will not escape.”
Proverbs 14:5 — “A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies.”
Leviticus 19:15-16 — “You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. You shall not go up and down as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand forth against the life of your neighbor.”
Numbers 35:30 — “If any one kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses; but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness.” [Note: although this is talking about murder, it is applicable in the case we are considering because the intentional destruction of a person’s life and career is in view].
Deuteronomy 17:6 — “On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses he that is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death [i.e. personally destroyed] on the evidence of one person.”
Matthew 18:16 — “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.”
II Corinthians 13:1 — “Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses.”

Although these are commands and principles given specifically to communities of faith, not secular governments or secular people, I re-emphasize that they are relevant to the extent that biblical concepts of law have undergirded our civilization’s civil law. It is, in the words of John Warwick Montgomery, “the law above the law.”

Beyond revealed truth, however, our Creator has also invested humanity with the capacity for Reason, which is an expression of his own nature and reality as the Logos. Therefore reason and logic play a role in how we think out this issue. With this in mind I pose the following questions.

Is someone here “bearing false witness,” either in accusation or denial?

Is it possible to know the answer to this, in the perspective of years following the alleged event?

Which person is more likely to live life in the context of an assumption of the existence of eternal and absolute moral principles of divine origin?

Where does the benefit of the doubt lie, logically?

Does an action undertaken in one’s immature years [assuming that the asserted action took place in this instance] nullify and dissolve the weight of a responsible and virtuous [in human terms] subsequent life over many years?

In reference to the above consideration, what moral/ethical evaluation can we attribute to a person who would purposefully seek to destroy a person’s earned reputation and personal life, born out of a corrected journey? Even if we grant a motivation of “saving society,” how does energizing an act of personal destruction of a person whose life displays responsibility, fairness, courtesy, honesty, mentorship (all asserted by many  witnesses as in contrast to none for the accuser here) contribute to such “salvation?”

Beyond these questions, I’d offer a few observations (if we are attempting to “think Christianly” about this).

Scripture nullifies the power of a simple assertion or accusation, even if corroborated by one witness. There must be two or three witnesses and, given the Numbers passage cited above, some form of evidence would seem to be required.

No such corroborating testimony exists in this case nor is any documentary, visual, or physical evidence made available to decision-makers.

According the a sermon I heard many years ago by David Argue, founding pastor of Christ’s Place Church in Lincoln, NE. the concept of “slander” can apply to things that are in fact true. It might be the correct designation to describe spreading about unseemly information about somebody with an intent to destroy or smear the individual. Context is important.

An accusation lacking evidence or corroborating testimony is, in biblical perspective, an act of personal destruction or hatred.

“Partiality” in judgment is sin. The Leviticus passage applies specifically to rich and poor, but would logically extent to weighting the case of any person based on economic status, sexual orientation, “gender,” or race. Whereas in the past a woman’s testimony was given short shrift (as it still is in Islamic culture) based on sex, today we are exhorted to believe a woman’s accusation for no other reason than she is a woman. The distorting principle exists, just turned around.

There are, today, double standards of concern in matters such as animate the Kavanaugh nomination. Proverbs 20:10 condemns this practice as follows: “Diverse weights and diverse measures are both alike an abomination to the Lord.” In view of this, we may ask why it is there is such concern for and about Kavanaugh’s accuser but so little, or no attention at all, given to other women whose memories are much clearer and whose experiences are part of long and well-known habit on the part of those who have abused them.

One never thinks perfectly about anything. What I’ve tried to do here is think (1) carefully and logically, (2) with application of biblical revelation. In the interests of full disclosure, I find the accuser in this case to be burdened with many intellectual, moral, and ethical difficulties that persuade me that she is little more than a useful, but consciously cooperating tool for the personal and professional destruction of a person who, in the weight of testimony on his behalf from dozens of women who possess at least as much, if not more, personal credibility, should be appointed to the position for which he has been nominated.

One may disagree with the process or principles set forth forth here, but they explain my conclusion. However, if one does want to take issue with me, statements like “it is absolutely required to have an FBI investigation” or “she’s a woman and therefore must be believed” are not acceptable, as they carry the baggage of secular and “post modern” principles and are characteristic of, and contribute to,  destructive divisions among people that are solely political. Such approaches reflect, in the words of Harry Blamires, “the easy self-deceptions of secularist thinking (TCM, p. 120).