When juries take circumstances into account, they come closer to the divine balance of justice and mercy.

It’s official. Oliver North was guilty. Court testimony left no doubt he committed criminal acts. Yet the jury in the case showed great restraint, convicting him on only three of the smaller counts when a strict interpretation of the legal statutes could have justified far stricter penalties.

Rudy Linares is also guilty. Linares is the Chicago man who stormed into the hospital that was keeping his brain-dead infant son alive on a respirator. While holding a gun on nurses and attendants, he disconnected the equipment, causing his boy to die. Yet a grand jury refused to indict Linares for any crime, citing the extenuating circumstances surrounding the case.

These two cases illustrate an important feature of our legal system. We might call this feature the extralegal factor.

Judicial Mercy

The law is sacrosanct, to be sure. It is the standard against which we are to be judged. The judging, however, is done by a jury of 12 people, and it is at that point that our law system goes beyond the strict interpretation of the law. Twelve men and women, no matter how honestly committed to the law, are swayed by more than the logic of the law and rational argument. They are influenced by public opinion, by extenuating circumstances, and by the charisma of prosecutors, defense counsel, and defendants. And they are, to some degree at least, captive to their own emotional make-up and background.

So is that good or bad? A few thoughts:

1. Such a system places a great deal of trust in the integrity of the masses. Sometimes that confidence is misplaced. Columnist Ellen Goodman recently wrote of a case in Grand Rapids that shows judicial “mercy” at its worst. A man, who happened to be a police officer, shot and killed his wife, who happened to be a county judge. The jury trying the case found the man innocent of first-degree murder and guilty of a lesser charge, voluntary manslaughter, because, as one juror put it, “Everybody felt he was provoked by his wife to do this.”

2. In spite of such abuses, however, the extra-legal element in our system does help identify bad law. Congress doesn’t always get it just right when it writes new laws. Neither does the Supreme Court when it sets legal precedents through its decisions. (Consider the notorious Roe v. Wade abortion decision.) When bad law becomes obvious to the “organized common sense” of the public, the fudge factors in our courts become extremely important to save law from becoming a tool of injustice rather than justice.

Article continues below

3. Further, it is democratic. In one sense we get a chance to register our feelings about the laws Congress passes when we elect congressmen. But the extra-legal factor gives us a second chance to register our thoughts through jury decisions, public forum and protest, and the use of courtroom rhetoric. Since these tools are available to prosecutors and defenders alike, it is one more case of democracy at work.

4. Finally, this extra-legal factor allows for mercy. As Christians, we long to see the biblical tension of justice and mercy played out, as much as possible, in our secularized government. Although our court system surely lacks the wisdom of God who perfectly balances these two key concepts, it is cases like the North trial and the Linares situation that show how close we often come to satisfying the biblical demand for both righteousness and forgiveness. It can never be perfect. But it is heartening to see both elements at work.

By Terry C. Muck.

For red-watchers already giddy with daily reports of glasnost-related reforms, the news from Poland was almost too much to believe. On May 17 the Polish Parliament legalized the Roman Catholic Church—and became the first Communist government to normalize relations with a religious organization. Under the comprehensive act, the church regained the right to publish newspapers, establish and operate schools, even run radio and television stations without government interference.

If there is joy in Warsaw, it is nearly equaled in churches across the United States who for years have prayed for the persecuted church. True, Poland’s Catholics have enjoyed cordial relations with the government in recent years, but they have suffered their share of persecution, especially in the 1950s. And as recently as 1984, government security forces were implicated in the murder of popular priest Jerzy Popieluszko. Given the notorious intolerance shown by Communist regimes to religion, it is heartening to hear about Poland’s brave new law.

The government of Poland deserves our praise, not so much for granting something it never should have denied, but for breaking away from the Soviet model of strict control over the church. We hope other Warsaw Pact nations will follow Poland’s lead.

We also rejoice with believers in Poland who for years have endured hardship for their faith. Those suffering saints include the small group of Protestants in that predominantly Catholic nation, and we hope they, too, will be granted legal status.

Article continues below

We hope, also, that Polish citizens will be as eager to follow the church’s leading on moral issues as they were on the political front. But recent developments there suggest the church’s biggest battle may still be ahead.

Morality And Politics

For years, the Catholic church in Poland has been something of a harbor in the troubled waters of totalitarianism. Dissidents—including outlawed Solidarity activists, writers, and artists—have all sought refuge in the church. They recognized a common partner in distress, one that could always be counted on regardless of the government’s efforts to silence her. It was a convenient clustering of vessels. The activists pushed for reform from a political perspective, while the church nudged from the moral and ethical foundations inherent in Christian doctrine, especially regarding human freedom and social justice.

Freed from the political battle of gaining legal status, the church has now stepped up the pace on its longstanding fight against abortion. Launching a nationwide legislative initiative to repeal Poland’s liberal abortion law, the church has taken an uncompromising position: it wants an absolute prohibition against abortion, including jail terms for women who have abortions, and for doctors or others who assist them.

This time, apparently, the church’s refusal to cave in is not so popular. Almost overnight, it has begun to lose favor among allies who once applauded its moral courage in standing up to the government. The Washington Post reported, “Public criticism of the church is unprecedented in postwar Poland.”

Church leaders in Poland are surprised at their sudden unpopularity. They shouldn’t be. Christians are called to be faithful to God’s laws, regardless of the cost. Polish Catholics learned this when they persevered in a land that does not acknowledge God. They lost jobs and pensions, but never hope.

As fellow believers in a land that has offered the freedom both to worship and to destroy the unborn, we urge Polish Christians to fight this battle just as bravely as they fought the government.

By Lyn Cryderman.

Thirty years ago the evangelical movement knew where it was going. It was fueled by the evangelistic fervor of a youthful Billy Graham and his Youth for Christ colleague Torrey Johnson, and framed by the doctrinal rigor of Carl F. H. Henry, Harold John Ockenga, Harold Lindsell, and others influential in the early days of Fuller Theological Seminary, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, and the National Association of Evangelicals. The fledgling movement eschewed the intellectual obscurantism and ecclesiastical separatism characteristic of much fundmentalism. And positively, it sought to provide a solid intellectual case for revealed Christian truth and an ecumenical fellowship for orthodox believers across traditional denominational boundaries.

Article continues below

Today the evangelical movement may be less certain of its direction and identity. The challenges it faces are as strong within this broad, loose coalition as are the challenges from outside—the remnants of theological modernism, de facto secularism, and gullible new agism. Those inside challenges? First, the moral lapses of both administrators of parachurch organizations and stars of evangelical show biz; second, the inevitable fuzziness that develops around the edges of truth commitments when a movement puts energy and effort into higher education, with its fussy passion for qualification and careful nuance; and third, the “Half-Way Covenant” factor that obtains when a new generation comes to leadership that has called neo-evangelicalism its family but does not itself bear the scars of the original battles fought to preserve the faith.

In the face of these challenges, the recent working conference, Evangelical Affirmations ‘89, is a welcome sign (CT, June 16, 1989, pp. 60, 63). Convened by two patriarchs of evangelicalism, Carl F. H. Henry and Kenneth S. Kantzer (both former editors of this magazine), the conference brought together young and old, lay and cleric, theologian and evangelist, to repent of sins and omissions, to firm up common doctrinal commitments, and to present a united face to the world. Only a decade or two will tell us about the lasting significance of Evangelical Affirmations 89. But the taste of this conference should be to us an appetizer for similar gatherings to come.

By David Neff.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.

Our digital archives are a work in progress. Let us know if corrections need to be made.

Tags:
Issue: