Blog Symposium Entry — Judeo-Christian Morality, A Pluralistic Society, and the Courts

This is my entry in the Evangelical Outpost Blog Symposium. The theme of the Symposium is “Judeo-Christian Morality in a Pluralistic Society.” In light of the continuing debates over the Terri Schiavo case, I’ve decided to write on how Judeo-Christian morality plays out in a pluralstic society in which courts arbitrate factual and legal disputes.

The Schiavo case prompted a barrage of commentary, much of it from conservative Christians, about the role of the American judiciary. The Schiavo case was seen as one more example of judges usurping judicial and executive authority and “legislating from the bench.” The truth, however, is that the state trial court did no such thing. Rather, the trial court merely adjudicated factual disputes about Terri Schiavo’s wishes concerning medical treatment, the nature of her medical condition, and the fitness of Michael Schiavo as a legal guardian.

It was a difficult, emotionally and morally charged case, and many Christians responded to the court’s decision with outrage. For many, this case violated fundamental moral principles concerning the value of human life. But courts decide such cases every day, in areas of law ranging from personal injury, to business law, to the death penalty. How should we respond when a court’s factual determinations lead to a result that seems to conflict with our moral principles?

I will suggest that there are three principles we must follow, all of which, I believe, are rooted in a Biblical understanding of a believer’s role in and relationship to civil government in a pluralistic society. These principles are respect for authority, recognition of complexity, and reasoned discourse. I’ll explore each of these principles below.

Judeo-Christian Morality, the Courts, and Respect for Authority

Romans 13:1-2 commands Christians to be subject to civil authorites:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

In most modern democratic societies, the judicial authority is one branch of the governing civil authorities. In the United States, Article III of the United States Constitution provides that the “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority. . . .” Similarly, every State has a Constitution or other governing document giving authority to State courts to decide certain types of cases. The Florida Constitution, which governs the courts that originally heard the Schiavo case, for example vests the judicial power in the county and appellate courts. [FN 1]

In short, the Florida Judge who tried the Schiavo case was among the Romans 13 authorites who deserve our respect and whose judgments should not ordinarily be resisted — as are all Judges in the United States. While this does not exclude the possibility of civil disobedience to a court order, it does exclude the sort of hostility and name-calling the Schiavo case spawned. Even more significantly, it excludes the concept that we can excoriate the courts in general because they are packed with “liberal” or “activist” judges. From God’s perspective as expressed in Romans 13, the courts are occupied by those whom He has appointed. Even if we disagree and lobby for change, we must never forget to respect their authority over us.

Judeo-Christian Morality, the Courts, and Recognition of Complexity

The second principle I’d like to discuss is the recognition of complexity. Most people who embrace a concept of Judeo-Christian morality are rightly leery of relativistic claims that there is no real truth or knowledge. Yet, we often use our understanding of absolute truth as a crutch to avoid complexity. This results in simplistic sloganeering rather than thoughtful public discourse.

All hard-fought legal cases involve some complexity. Cases in which one side or the other is clearly and completely wrong tend to settle quickly. In most cases that reach trial (and only a small number of cases are ever do), the facts and law can be interpreted in different ways.

Facts are slippery in most lawsuits. Sometimes this is because of simple dishonesty, but usually it is equally because of human fallibility. Everyone, no matter how scrupulous, tells their story in a way that favors their own interests. Memory is always selective. Language is always imprecise. Intent and motives ultimately are hidden and multi-layered. There is never time, money, energy, or ability enough to uncover and fully examine every last stone.

Nor is the law often subject only to one interpretation. The process of stare decisis by which common law precedents are created is an ongoing experiment. Likewise, the legislation courts are called upon to interpret usually resembles the proverbial sausage, with bits contributed by various interest groups combined into a product that can’t be neatly dissected and applied to a fresh set of facts.

The judicial process, then, cannot provide much more than rough justice. Judges and juries always must make difficult human judgments. Only God can has the perfect knowledge and perfect intentions required for perfect justice, and He has chosen to reserve that sort of justice for the final judgment.

If we fail to understand the intensely human aspects of judicial decision-making, we will merely fixate on hard cases. This is a mistake because it overlooks the importance of process to a concept of adjudicative justice. We cannot remove human frailty from human judgments. The best we can do is to establish procedural rules that mitigate the effects of such frailty. We need the sophistication to engage in debate at the broader procedural level, rather than limiting our focus to particular factual decisions that seem to offend our moral sense.[FN2]

This means we sometimes must accept judicial decisions with which we disagree. Sometimes, as outside observers to a particular case, we will think the court is getting it wrong. Sometimes our perception will be correct, sometimes not. Regardless, we cannot expect to change every apparently incorrect factual decision through special legislation or civil disobedience. We must apply our Judeo-Christian moral principles at the process level if we expect to have any meaningful impact on how justice is done through the courts.

Judeo-Christian Morality, the Courts, and Reasoned Discourse

Finally, our public discourse about the courts must always be reasoned. We must remember that when we discuss judicial policy in the public square we are addressing those who do not hold our particular Judeo-Christian beliefs as well as those who do hold them. It is not enough to state that a judicial decision must be overturned because it violates God’s law. We must translate our particular religious expression of God’s law into a form accessible to others in the public square.

Some will object that God’s law is true, and we must stand for truth, regardless of whether others believe it. This sentiment is, of course, correct. There is a difference, however, between standing for Truth and arguing in the public square for policies that comport with the Truth. We must accept the fact that the world will often reject Truth. This may entail not only a rejection of our policy proposals, but also affirmative persecution. We stand for Truth regardless of the world’s response.

Yet, we also know that God’s law is true and good because it is real. It is not arbitrary and does not conflict with ordinary human experience. In fact, God’s law is part of His design for creation. This is reflected in the Biblical notion of “justice” as “making things as they were meant to be.” We can easily find points of contact with ordinary human experience through which we can discuss public policy issues with resort to dogma.

As applied to judicial decisions, this approach again suggests an emphasis on broad procedural issues rather than on the outcomes of particular hard cases. Judeo-Christian moral concepts such as fairness, human dignity, judicial objectivity, and compassion for the oppressed can translate into broadly applicable procedural rules that are readily accessible within the public square. We can argue forcefully, for example, that, given our high regard for human dignity, the evidentiary standard for determining whether a patient in a persistent vegitative state would have chosen to terminate life sustaining artificial nutrition and hydration should be the highest possible, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” If instead we merely decry the fact that the decision in one particular PVS case may have been immoral, we will have achieved nothing but the escalation of fruitless angry rhetoric.

Conclusion

At no other time in history have courts been so important as they are now in American society. If we as people of faith wish to bring their moral views to bear on public policy, we must address the role and function of the courts. This must include a healthy respect for the courts as a source of God-given authority, a recognition of the complexity of the courts’ appointed task, and a reasoned approach to judicial policy that extends beyond individual hard cases. Only then will we begin to influence the judicial process further towards a Biblical concept of justice.

Footnotes

[FN 1]Pursuant to the Florida Constitution, the here.