Biblical Justice: Part Three

I do hope that the principles I’ve laid out in the previous post are refreshing reminders to you that the Bible really does have much to say about biblical justice. You don’t have to get creative or start guessing when the flack or manipulation comes your way. Depending on the specifics of the situation, you’ve got a biblical utility belt full of handy instruments you can pull out and utilize in the name of biblical standards. Done well, you can avoid much drama, heartache, and wasted time. Of course, the saboteurs of justice do not like this. They like to create their own rules, not follow God’s. That’s ok. Letting them stew in the face of truth is likely one of the best things for them, so don’t lose any sleep when, after you respond biblically, they thrash a little harder, tweet a little more fiercely, or blog with greater angst. This is to be expected. What the nation needs right now is Christians who will respond to various, slanderous barrages biblically, calmly, and who then move on with their days and lives. We should be about the business of letting our biblical responses dull the teeth of the beast.

With that said, I want to provide some examples of what I believe are appropriate reactions to accusations, slander, or other manipulative tactics that enemies may employ against you or others like you. These don’t cover every possible scenario, but are hopefully helpful to you as you consider wisely employing what God has said we ought to employ when charges come.

Require Specificity
Way too many accusations and charges are taken seriously without any specificity given. This isn’t right. Let me give an example of a general accusation vs. a specific one.

General: “You’re not trustworthy.”
Specific: “You stole twenty dollars from the till.”

See the difference? Specificity matters. This goes for situations when charges are leveled against you and when you are the one leveling charges. Don’t say that someone is “not trustworthy” unless you’re prepared to focus in on something specific. What about when the accusation comes your way? Though you’ll likely be labeled as “defensive,” the right thing to do when a general accusation is leveled is to require specificity. This is because sin is never general, but always specific. If there really is an offense in your life, it has to be uniquely identifiable. If there’s nothing to the accusation, requiring specificity will reveal how shallow the accusation is, and it can begin to fade away.

“You’re behavior has been horrible.” “What do you mean?”
“You’ve said some really hurtful things.” “Like what?”
“You’ve caused a lot of damage over the years.” “Can I have an example?”

Again, if there is validity to a charge brought against you, it will come out in specific form. As long as ideas remain nebulous vapors drifting through the atmosphere, there’s not much to be done with them.

Principle: For a charge to be taken seriously, it must take shape.

Don’t Lie
Sometimes, apologizing is lying. When someone accuses you of something, you might have the temptation to apologize to your accuser, even if you are not convinced that you are guilty. Don’t do it. To apologize for a sin you didn’t commit is to bear false witness.

Here’s a common form of what I’m talking about - one we might not think of as lying. Let’s say a newlywed man has an argument with his new wife. Frustrated, he turns to his own father or grandfather for advice. Here’s the response he gets: “Son, I’ve learned in situations like this that the facts don’t really matter as much as you might think. The best thing to do is just say sorry for whatever she’s mad about and move on.”

The common “advice” given above is not advice at all. It is sin. Why is it sin? It is sin because the ninth commandment exists, which requires us to always stand for what is true. Too often do we take what we think is the easy way out. Just apologize and they’ll leave you alone, we think. When we own sin that isn’t ours, we are lying, and when we lie, we are not loving anyone, including the one accusing us, since love rejoices in the truth, according to 1 Corinthians 13:8. Not only that, but claiming sin that isn’t yours does the opposite of what you hope it will do. It doesn’t make the problem go away. Rather, it demonstrates to your accuser that you can be controlled and manipulated. Trust me, they’ll take note of this, and they’ll be back for more.

Principle: Never take ownership for sin that isn’t yours to own.

Ignore the Imaginary Mob
“Just so you know, I’m not the only one who feels this way.”
“Really? There are others?”
“Yes, plenty of others.”
“Where are they?”
“They are just as upset as I am, but they don’t feel that you are approachable, so I’m the one here bringing the concern.”
“I’d like to interact with these people. Who are they?”
“I can’t say.”
“Why not?”
“They’d like to remain anonymous. But trust me - they’re real and they are UPSET.”

Ever had an interaction like this? A common tactic for accusers is to assert that they bravely represent a crowd of shy, oppressed witnesses, even though the lone accuser is the only one sitting before you. When you try and track down who these people might be, the accuser clams up in the name of being virtuous. What he or she calls virtue, though, is normally wicked manipulation. If he/she actually cared about biblical justice, the right for you to face your accuser would be embraced (see my second post). But that’s not their point. Their point is to convince you that there’s an army outside ready to act if you don’t give into the pressure of whatever they’re laying upon you.

Don’t take the bait. Treat this imaginary mob as they truly are - imaginary. Witnesses can’t be taken seriously until you can be certain that they actually exist. Can you imagine how chaotic the justice system would be if judges took anonymous letters seriously?

“Dear judge, in the case if mister Billy Johnson, I urge you to condemn him. He’s a really, really bad guy who has done really horrible things to me. I can’t give you any details. You just have to trust me. Please don’t attempt to contact me or ascertain my identity, as I’d like to remain unknown. Just know that if you don’t act upon my letter, you are also a really, really, bad guy who doesn’t care about justice. Signed, anonymous.”

Principle: Never make any decision on the basis of anonymous opinion or testimony.

Just Say “No”
This is a simple favorite of mine. Did you know that you are allowed to say “no” to accusers and manipulators? I realize we live in an age and culture of instant gratification. We feel the intense pressure of giving into every request made of us. But one of the most potent tools in your arsenal is a two-letter word. “No.” Let me give you a few, rapid-fire examples of using “no” in the face of justice-abusers.

“Hello, Jeff. You don’t know me, but I saw something you said on Facebook through a mutual friend and I’m really bothered by it. Will you explain and defend what you meant?”
“No.”

“I’m going downtown to march in that anti-police brutality demonstration. I think it’s really important for all the Christians in our area to be there to help make a statement against systemic injustice. You’re planning on going, right?”
“No.”

“Pastor Bob, I’d like to meet with you. I’m not part of your church, but I’ve heard through the grapevine some things you’ve said from the pulpit recently, and I think they’re downright egregious. Who is holding you accountable?! Let me know when we can meet.”
“No.”

“Dear citizen, I am writing to make you aware of the atrocities of [a certain public figure in town]. His past has been uncovered and we have determined he is not fit for his role anymore. We are gathering signatures to see him removed from his post. We care about justice, and we hope you do, too. Can we count on your signature?”
“No.”

You get the idea. Now, to be clear, there are times to say “yes.” I’m thinking especially of situations in which the one making a request is someone who really does deserve your time and attention. This is mostly applied to people in an immediate family, members of your local church, etc. My point here is that we ought to say “no” way more than we do, and we certainly aren’t obligated to say “yes” to malicious accusers or emotional manipulators to whom we are not accountable and with whom we have no relationship.

Principle: Know when to say “no,” and when they ask you to explain why you said “no,” just say “no.”

Waterproof Your Mind
“Waterproof” really isn’t the best word. “Tearproof” (as in crying) is what I mean. This is a plain way of saying that you must not be given to being swayed by emotional manipulation, even when the tears are flowing generously and starting to flood the room. There is a wrong way of thinking that goes like this: “This person is so sincere in there charge against me that it has brought them to tears. If they are crying, there must be validity to what they are saying. Perhaps I really am guilty…”

As Carl Truman has pointed out, we live in an age ruled by the “self.” We dare not question the self, challenge the self, or speak ill against the self. When the self has been wounded, what is one of the first signs? Emotional demonstration - often through tears. You’ve committed that greatest of crimes. You’ve attacked the self. Crying is an ages-old tactic to manipulate sensitive people into giving in. Remember Delilah?

Let’s say you are under accusation by an angry woman. Shortly into the conversation, the tears start. Will you be swayed by the presence of them? I hope not. Tears aren’t thinking things. They aren’t an argument, a piece of evidence, or a rational thought in and of themselves. They are droplets of salty water. You must engage with the words spoken and the facts presented, and nothing else.

I’m not saying you ought to be uncaring or insensitive. In my office, for example, I have tissues on hand for any teary person who may enter. And not all tears are used manipulatively, to be fair. Some people cry more readily than others, and they mean nothing by it. Those are not the people I’m talking about. I’m talking about the people who have spent decades getting their way through emotional manipulation. Their thought goes like this: “If I’m upset, you need to be, too. If I’m crying, you must take my case more seriously.”

Principle: Emotional demonstrations do not make a claim more truthful.

Credible or Not?
Did you know that some people make their living filing lawsuits against the government and large corporations? These people are leveraging the justice system to their own advantage. It’s become a business to them. Their aim is not justice. Their aim is dollars. People of this sort are not to be taken seriously as credible witnesses.

Perform this mental exercise: think of someone in your life who is credible. They are easily believed because they have a reputation of loving the truth and are not in the habit of bringing accusations flippantly. Now think of someone in your life who you would say is not credible. This person is quick to accuse. He does not believe the best. He reads into the words and behaviors of others and creates drama where there is none to be found. He is evidently a seeker of his own fame and self-interest. Now, place these two alongside one another in your mind. Which witness will you take more seriously?

This is touching on the unavoidable reality that our reputations matter and are connected to our testimonies. If someone is found to be guilty of a crime fifteen times, when he approaches the bench the sixteenth time, I’m going to assume he’ll be found guilty again. I may be surprised, but I doubt it.

Let’s say there is a man down the road that, as far as you know, is living above reproach and has his life in order. Suddenly, accusations about his personal life, his past, and his intentions start spreading all over social media. The charges are serious and sound absolutely condemning for this man if they are true. You do a little research to discover who is at the source of perpetuating these accusations. You quickly observe that the instigator is a perpetual accuser. Anyone and everyone is fair game to him, and he dishes out charges like candy at a parade. He loves to accuse, and has, in fact, gone after two other reputable men in the area within the past several weeks. Are all the men in town really that bad, and this guy alone has special insight to their wretchedness, or could the problem actually be with the accuser?

Anyone with a modicum of discernment will quickly understand that, in situations like this, the accuser is not credible. Perhaps at one time he was to be taken seriously, but through his unending criticism and perpetual habit of rapid-fire accusations, he has proven himself to be someone bankrupt of credibility. When one accusatory lead takes him to a dead-end, he moves onto another without remorse and without repentance. This proves that he does not love justice. He loves accusing. What he fails to grasp is that for every attempted charge that proves false, his own believability goes down. He strips himself of public integrity and shifts himself further into the category of “not to be believed.”

Especially in cases like this, your duty as a Christian is to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused and to view the accuser with great scrutiny.

Principle: Not all witnesses are equal in their credibility.

Conclusion
When biblical justice is upheld, God is honored, innocence is protected, and the truth wins. Remember, applying these principles is undergirded with your commitment to take ownership of your own sins when biblical justice is applied and you are found to be at fault. Be quick to repent and eager to seek and extend the grace of forgiveness. Stand for what’s right, and don’t settle for hijacked versions of justice that are no justice at all.