In the book of Acts, there are several important ecclesiastical trials where Christians ran afoul of the current church courts. In each case, false accusations were made, witnesses gave false testimony, and the accused was sanctioned by the court (either by admonition, beatings or even unlawful execution). Each of these examples of judicial malfeasance gives insight as to why contemporary church courts so often fall short of even secular standards of justice. By examining what they did wrong, it may help us ensure that we do not replicate their mistakes.

The case of Stephen in Acts chapters six and seven is particularly illuminating. Having just been ordained to (by what most commentators believe to be) the office of deacon, Stephen was debating the Jews before the crowds (Acts 6:8ff). His detractors were losing the debate, and therefore behind his back stirred up the crowd by accusing him of blasphemy against the temple and the Law. He was then arrested and dragged before the Sanhedrin, the supreme ecclesiastical court of the day. False witnesses, under oath, made false accusations and gave false testimony whereupon he was given the opportunity to make his defense.

In chapter seven, Stephen refutes the false accusations by essentially recapitulating the entire history of Israel from Abraham through Solomon. Since he was accused of blaspheming the Law and Temple, clearly, his purpose here is to AFFIRM traditional Jewish dogma; i.e., that Abraham was the father of the Israelites, the deliverance from Egypt under Moses, giving of the Law from God, the establishment of the Kingdom under David and the holiness of the temple under Solomon. By affirming what would have been the common, accepted knowledge of Jewish history, Stephen was essentially under-cutting the false accusations made against him. His doctrine, was NOT blasphemous, did not deny “orthodoxy” and was in conformity to accepted theological standards. Please note that Stephen’s orthodoxy was in direct contrast to the theological liberals of the day, the Sadducees, who were in good standing with the ecclesiastical courts;. The Sadducees had adopted some aspects of Greek philosophy, denied the resurrection and had their own, peculiar slant on Jewish religion. Yet, even though their theology was heterodox, they were neither persecuted nor inhibited in preaching THEIR brand of the “faith.”

Then, after making his defense, he turned the tables on his judges and accused them of being just like their ancestors who murdered the prophets, and despite their external allegiance to the Law, were rebellious to God. The Sanhedrin then literally, “stopped their ears” dragging himself outside the city to stone him.

Now as interesting as it may be to have an account of the first martyr, why does Scripture go into such detail regarding Stephen’s case? Scripture is never given simply to inform, but also to instruct and teach; Luke had a purpose in mind for giving us so much detail about all of the early trials where Christians were persecuted. By the time that Luke was writing Acts, Christians were being oppressed across the empire charged, convicted and sentenced in both ecclesiastical and civil courts. Paul was imprisoned in Rome, and Peter would be executed shortly. I would argue that one of the main purposes in giving us such detailed records of judicial malfeasance was to encourage the saints who were being oppressed by both civil and ecclesiastical courts. This was an apologetic FOR Christianity, and an indictment AGAINST the civil and religious judicial systems. After all, both secular and religious leaders were condemning Christianity, finding them guilty of heresy and treason which would have been a strong mark against the credibility of the Faith. The average resident of the empire would know full well that Christians were being found guilty of all sorts of “horrible” things, and therefore would rightly be concerned about getting involved with such people.

As Luke was writing Acts, Paul was in chains, arguing for his life before Caesar. He too had been falsely accused. Thus the detailed accounts of Peter, John, and Stephen demonstrate that Paul was in good company; if they had unlawfully arrested, tortured and killed these men, then it ought not to be surprising they were doing the same thing to Paul. Once Luke’s account was distributed, Christians would have a powerful answer as to why their leaders were being arrested and executed; the justice system itself was terribly flawed.

What is concerning to the modern reader though is that in the two thousand years since these events took place, it appears as if the church has forgotten the cost of injustice. Rather than demonstrating to the world that within the church, we can adjudicate conflicts and problems wisely, justly and fairly (1 Cor 6:1ff), some ecclesiastical courts seem to have adopted the practices of Rome and Jerusalem, rather than repudiate them.

These are strong accusations, so let us see if we can defend our analysis above. First, note that the Sanhedrin had already made its mind up, before Stephen’s case ever came before them. They knew full well what the Christian faith was all about and had already reached a judicial decision before any accusations were made, witnesses were heard or the accused had an opportunity to answer their critics. In the Gospels, the Sanhedrin had conspired to execute Jesus supposedly because they “feared” that he would lead a popular uprising against Rome which would bring disaster on the entire nation. However, this was a smoke-screen; the real reason they hated Jesus was because He had consistently had attacked the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, the heterodoxy of the Sadducees and the perversions of worship inside of the temple itself. Regardless of their STATED reasons for arresting Jesus, they had already decided that He had to die and so manufactured evidence to justify their already preconceived verdict.

Sadly, this is not unusual in modern church courts (at least the churches that have courts). Though various “rules of discipline” used by different churches lay out reasonably good procedures for handling judicial cases, often, problems are dealt with “behind the scene.” Someone has offended someone, and rather than follow the principles of Matthew 18:15, Galatians 6:1ff or other passages, the offended does an end run around the relevant principles that would actually resolve the problem. Instead, gossip, slander and innuendo are used to blacken the victim, sometimes before he even knows there is a problem. Deals are then made by the “back-door” where the victim’s fate is determined well before there is any finding of fact. Sometimes, it appears as if the only cases allowed to come forward for adjudication are those where the verdict has already been determined.

For example, in some Presbyteries in the PCA, the commission charged with investigating an offence, is the same commission that prosecutes the offense and judges the offence! This is also no different from a police officer arresting a suspect, then prosecuting the person, and then sitting as judge and jury! Thus the accused is already considered guilty before a trial takes place; a trial whose very purpose is to demonstrate his guilt! This is “justice” the old Soviet way; first consider a man guilty, then hold a “show” trial for the outside world to “justify” the actions being taken.

The Sanhedrin KNEW that Christianity was not a political threat (at least not in the sense of instigating an armed revolt) because they had already prosecuted Jesus. The whole point of the trial therefore was NOT to find the truth, but rather to justify their hatred and destruction of Jesus and His disciples. The Apostolic Message was that Jesus was the foretold Messiah; a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. Therefore it was a religious conclusion that could have been either accepted or rejected by the Sanhedrin and lived with, just as the Sanhedrin rejected the Sadducees’ Greek interpretation of Judaism yet managed to live in peace with them.

Instead, they used the argument that Christianity would bring about a popular revolt and the subsequent destruction of Israel by the Romans as an EXCUSE to execute Jesus and persecute His disciples. Ironically, forty years later, Rome did destroy Israel because of a popular uprising; God will not be mocked.

Secondly, notice that the Sanhedrin had no qualms about listening to, and accepting false testimony, even though they KNEW that the testimony was false. These men were not confused; they knew the truth. But the truth was sacrificed for a higher purpose. They would were willing to use any means to destroy Jesus and stop His message in pursuit of a “higher” good.

However, what was that “higher” good? Clearly, it could not have been a fear of Roman retaliation- they knew that Jesus was not preaching revolt against Rome. They had tried repeatedly to get him to make some “treasonous” statement and failed. Nor was their motivation a sincere concern that Jesus was threatening Old Testament orthodoxy. He had been repeatedly questioned and shown that His doctrine was the fully consistent with the Law and Prophets (cf. Matt 5:18ff).

The real problem was that Jesus was a direct threat to their own power and prestige; if Jesus was the Christ, then they were no longer “top” dogs and therefore, Jesus had to go. They saw the crowds following first Jesus, and then the Disciples and the Sanhedrin was eaten up with envy. The miracles that Jesus and the Disciples did were clearly things THEY could not do, and therefore should not be done! Rather than rejoice in people being healed, instead they became angry and spiteful. Thus, Jesus and the Disciples were direct threats to their own privileged positions.

Never underestimate the ability of sinful men to find lofty, high-sounding motivations to disguise their own selfish interests and concerns. Sinful men can become expert at rationalizing, finding all sorts of “good” reasons for doing what they are doing. True, undoubtedly many of the Sanhedrin might well have been sincere; the story of Stephen ends with the Sanhedrin handing their cloaks to Saul (later Paul). Paul became a vicious persecutor of the early church out of the “highest” motives. After all, had not a duly constituted court of the church judged this new faith to be blasphemy and a threat to the purity of Jewish religion? How many other men on the Sanhedrin felt the same as Paul? Surely, the whole point of Stephen’s trial was to convince SOME members (like Gamaliel who had already cautioned the Sanhedrin about persecuting the church), as well as the people in general, that these Christians were blasphemous and dangerous.

This then is the third way that churches pervert justice; the men who constitute the assembly, who have the moral responsibility to judge are far too likely to defer to their leaders and accept things at face value, rather than go through the hard work of determining truth and error. All men want to be accepted and approved by other men. There is a psychological term called “conformity behavior” that has been repeatedly demonstrated to operate in real life as well as the laboratory; the tendency of people to adopt the beliefs, values and standards of those around them, rather than resist, even when they KNOW that the majority is wrong!

This dynamic was clearly operating both in the Sanhedrin as well as in the general public. Simple cross-examination ought to have demonstrated that the accusations were false, and therefore under Mosaic Law, the witnesses were liable to the same punishment they wished to deal out to the accused. But no one asked those hard questions, no one listened to Stephen’s defense that he was teaching conformity to Old Testament religion. Instead, the “good” men, who had no agenda, REFUSED to take a stand because doing so would put them at odds with the rest of the Sanhedrin. They “feared men more than God” and delivered their integrity and consciences over to the wickedness of their leaders. They therefore became accessories to the crime.

In the past decade of talking to various men about controversial judicial cases in both the PCA and OPC, often, when I asked someone HOW they found a certain man guilty of a certain sin, the response was often, “Well ten good men found him guilty so who am I to argue with them?” Part of this attitude is undoubtedly due to the division of labor, nobody can do everything that needs to be done. If a judicial case is given over to a commission to investigate, and they have spent months pouring over documents, receiving testimony, etc., then clearly, the average presbyter might rightly assume they know more about the case than he does.

But often, the reason is far less laudable; for some it is laziness pure and simple. Many men do not want to do the hard work of adjudicating a difficult case, and willingly allow others to do it for them. Sometimes though, men will succumb to fear and taking a stand in public is just too “dangerous.” It is seldom a situation of outright threat or intimidation, just a desire to please the group and “not make waves.” I have witnessed personally a number of vigorous debates on the floor of various Presbyteries where some injustice was being done. Often, too often I was the only one to take a public stand against some proposed action that was contrary to the Constitution, Confession, or simple justice. When the vote came, usually I would lose my point; yet often by only a few votes; it seems that many people actually agreed with the point I had been making. After the meeting, many times these men would come up and thank me for speaking out on that particular issue. This happened so often that after a while I began asking them, “Well then, why didn’t you speak to that issue? If only one or two more people had taken a public stand with me, we MIGHT have won on this.” Usually, these men had no answer.

They may have voted with me, but they were unwilling to stand up and vocally support the position. Why was that? They were afraid; something with which I can fully understand-after all, my mouth was dry, my hands trembling and I could feel my own heart in my throat when I believed conscience demanded that I take a public stand against what the majority of my brothers wanted to do. But if I did not stand up and address the issue, I would be failing in my ordination vows. I have agonized over almost every vote I ever made at presbytery because I KNEW that God was going to hold me accountable some day. Sadly, over the years, in my experience, most men value personal peace over truth. And so they sit silently at best. At worst, they simply followed the majority and allowed injustices occur because it is too personally threatening to take a stand. Ever actually watched people in a public forum, vote: many people will look around to see how their friends are voting before they raise their own hands?

In verse 51, Stephen “seems” to make what many would call today a serious error. If all he had to do was defend himself against false accusations, he should have stopped with his impromptu history lesson. After all, he had just proven that he was not a blasphemer but held to the traditional Jewish understanding of the importance of Abraham, the Law, the Kingdom and the Temple. Instead, Stephen then did something that would get him charged with arrogance and convicted of contumacy in almost every modern day Presbyterian court; he turned the accusations back against the court.

Many people today would undoubtedly argue that if Stephen had just “made nice” with the Sanhedrin, they would have let him go. Instead, he “called them names” (“stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart”), told then that they were “resisting the Holy Spirit” and doing just what their fathers had done; murdering the prophets (vs. 51).

Why would Stephen deliberately inflame the court that was deciding his fate? First, we must not second guess Stephen here; after all, he was given direct, special revelation from God, showing that his actions and manner were approved. Furthermore he was NOT insulting them. When Paul is in a similar situation many years later, he responded to an unlawful beating by calling the Pharisees “white-washed tombs.” When rebuked, because he said this to the High Priest, Paul immediately recants. Stephen however did NOT recant; therefore, his remarks were not insults, but rather a prophetic judgment. Calling a man who lies, a “liar” is not insulting, as long as the accusation is true.

Thus Stephen knew what the REAL issue was; the Sanhedrin’s own blatant refusal to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. Everything they were doing was a “show trial” to justify their own execution of Jesus and their persecution of His disciples. The Sanhedrin had already lost whatever moral authority they had by perverting justice in executing Jesus. Stephen KNEW he was not going to get justice; after all the Sanhedrin had already unlawfully beaten Peter and John without cause or trial.

Stephen simply recognized he had nothing to fear from them, and nothing to lose by speaking the truth. As a godly man, a deacon in the church, one given miraculous powers and special revelation, he simply told them the truth; a truth they refused to hear. And so they killed the messenger.

His accurate assessment of their real, underlying motives and reasons made them furious, outraged, and indignant! How dare this man call the integrity of the court into question! The hypocrisy here is so blatant it leaps off the page. Wicked men will use the forms of justice, to justify themselves, but they refuse to be in submission to the standards they use against others. They were upset that he correctly identified their real, underlying motivations and exposed the hypocrisy of their “court!” This reminds one of the story told by Abraham Lincoln about the man who was convicted of murdering his parents, asking for clemency because he was “a poor orphan!”

Consequently, they dragged Stephen outside and murdered him. This again demonstrates the complete moral and legal bankruptcy of the court. The Sanhedrin had no right to execute anyone; remember how they had to go to Pilate to secure Jesus’ execution? What they did to Stephen was murder, pure and simple; a murder that not one of them ever stood trial for (at least in a human court). The Sanhedrin became a law unto themselves, breaking both God’s Law and Caesar’s in killing Stephen.

This too is not dissimilar to many modern Presbyterian courts. When Presbyters are confronted with some injustice or significant procedural error that would pervert justice, many will PROUDLY say that “Well, I am not a BCO man…” with a shrug of the shoulder. The BCO (Book of Church Order) in the PCA is the constitution of the church; the agreed on procedural rules on how they will govern Christ’s people. Every teaching and ruling elder takes a solemn oath before God and his brothers to act in accordance with these rules. Yet many do not know these rules, will not study them, cannot recognize violations of them, and speak condescendingly and even contemptuously about those who do! They thus become oath-breakers because they either ignore or suspend their own constitution whenever it becomes inconvenient or contrary to their will.

But the ONLY authority such men have in the first place comes from the covenant they make when they are ordained by the church; a covenant that requires belief in the confessional documents of the church and adherence to the procedures of the constitution. Yet, there is a recurring lack of integrity amongst Presbyterian elders in this regard; many men are ordained who flagrantly disagree with the Westminster Standards even when they publicly vow that they are in agreement with them. The BCO is only invoked when it supports some action or decision that the Presbytery already wants to do, regardless of the actual provisions. When the BCO is inconvenient, it is simple ignored.

Hence, today, men take unlawful, unconstitutional power unto themselves, power they have no right to exercise but they use the credibility of the church courts to justify and rationalize their actions. In effect, they are no different in moral orientation than Stephen’s murderers; they ignore their own law if they get angry enough.

Finally, despite the fact that none of the Sanhedrin was ever tried in a civil court for killing Stephen, we must not think that they “got away with murder.” God’s timing is different from ours, but His justice is sure. Some issues He reserves unto Himself at the Great White Throne judgment; some issues He decides to judge in time. By 70 AD, the judicial perversions of the Sanhedrin had come full circle; first they were the victims of political revolutionaries, the Zealots, who managed to assassinate even the high priest. Eventually, the city of Jerusalem was besieged by the Romans, captured, the temple destroyed and the Sanhedrin massacred. God will not be mocked.

God’s judgments are always eternal, but often temporal as well. Other than out-right apostasy, there can be fewer blasphemies more serious than a court of the church, charged with dispensing God’s justice, perverting that justice in His name. Churches that pervert justice will be held accountable, one way or the other; the presbyter sitting silently in his seat allowing false accusations to go unchallenged because he is either too lazy to check the facts, or too fearful of speaking out may want to consider this. God will not be mocked. Eventually, either in time or eternity, he, his church, his presbytery or his General Assembly will be judged for his actions, or lack thereof.

Many godly men since apostolic times have been persecuted by ecclesiastical courts; Luther and Calvin by Rome, the Puritans by Bloody Mary Tudor’s bishops, John Knox in Scotland. And lest we think this is just ancient history, allow me to mention just two modern examples; J. Gresham Machen excommunicated by the Northern Presbyterian Church; he then went on to found the Orthodox Presbyterian Church; and R. J. Rushdoony who thirty years later was persecuted by that same Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

In both cases, all that had to happen for injustice and persecution to occur was for good men to sit back and do nothing. Machen was excommunicated because the liberals and evangelicals conspired together to rid themselves of a Reformed teacher who was upsetting the church by insisting on having missionaries actually preach the gospel! For the liberals, he was a threat to their power. To the evangelicals, he was a threat to their pensions (see Gary North’s “Crossed Fingers”). Either way, he was “disturbing the peace and purity” of the church. A church court then excommunicated him; said that he was in fact a gentile and unbeliever and that no Christian ought to even to eat with him. Well, the Northern Presbyterian Church is today recognized as apostate, ungodly, and wicked, despite the continued witness of some evangelicals who remained within it; but even they have a hard time stomaching some of the theological and moral rubbish that comes down every year from their general assembly.

R. J. Rushdoony fell afoul of the church Machen started thirty years later by having a Bible study in his home. He was a member of Northern California Presbytery, but resided in Southern California. Certain men in the Southern Californian Presbytery objected to Rushdoony having a Bible study that was not under their control. They filed charges against him. Rushdoony considered the matter, resigned from the OPC and joined another denomination deciding that fighting a long and vicious battle that would take years to resolve was just not worth his time; he had better things to do. And so the OPC lost one of the most important theological minds of the 20th century.

Case after case appears every year in Presbyterian digests that reveal the corruption, ignorance, negligence and injustice of modern ecclesiastical trials. Granted, there are those legitimate cases of adultery, immorality, pastoral misconduct, rebellion, heresy, etc. which the courts rightly adjudicate. But what is most concerning is that most Presbyters do not even read through the trial documents before voting on the verdict. In the PCA, the average Presbyter is only allowed to approve or disapprove an independent commission’s findings, without ever being able to find out what “really” happened. And the guilty go free, while the innocent are persecuted.

Church courts that lose their integrity have also lost their moral authority. Like the Sanhedrin, when they deliberately pervert justice in order to further some other end, whether the goal is “peace” or “church growth” or something more insidious, they bring the gospel into disrepute, hinder the advancement of the Kingdom, and subject themselves to God’s inevitable judgment. The Reformed faith has always understood proper discipline to be an essential mark of the true church. Therefore if the courts are corrupt, whether by intention or inattention, the church has lost one of its distinctive marks, and unwittingly joined forces with Satan.

What can be done?

The fundamental issue is one of personal, Christian character; we need men of integrity, courage, honesty and loyalty. Sadly, we have lost sight of what constitutes Christian character. Any soldier can look sharp and military in the barracks; the acid test is how he handles himself under fire. Sadly, both the church militant and the army have found no sure way to distinguish between a hero and a coward until the bullets start flying.

The modern church has largely accommodated itself to the dominant cultural values of contemporary society; personal peace and prosperity. Francis Schaeffer warned us forty years ago, but the average elder succumbed anyway. Personal peace means that elders do not want to deal with problems. They do not want to resolve disputes or exhort or admonish those in sin because it makes everyone feel uncomfortable, threatening one’s personal peace and clearly can have a negative effect on the church’s finances. Hence, often, sins go unrebuked or unconfronted, until the situation blows up in everyone’s face and the church splits.

However, if an elder DOES confront sin, Biblically, gently and with the best intentions in mind, HE can be accused of being a trouble-maker! He is disturbing the peace of the church by revealing, what many want to keep safely out of sight; if we don’t see it, we don’t have to deal with it. This is not unlike those people who are suffering from severe physical symptoms but refuse to seek medical attention because they are afraid the doctor might diagnose them with cancer! Eventually, these sins eat away the real unity and peace of the church, not to mention ravaging peoples’ souls, but the elders choose not to see the problem, because then they would have to treat them.

Furthermore, elders often refuse to deal with problems wisely and justly because it threatens their own prosperity. Every pastor wants a large “successful” church; it benefits him not only professionally, but also financially. However, if he rebukes sins and adjudicates trials, he risks offending people. If offends enough, they will leave his church putting both his reputation and his salary in jeopardy. Now, clearly, no pastor wants to admit this up front; it sounds more than a little selfish to admit a pastor has concerns about his career or paycheck; but how else explain the widespread refusal of elders to confront sin? Usually, the back door is just left open and it is hoped that problem people will fade away without involving the session. I have known men in some presbyteries to brag that they have not handled a judicial case in YEARS! But are the people in all those churches really so holy or is it that some other mechanism has been found for avoiding a messy trial?

We need a commitment to something other than our own personal, subjective feelings. Modern churches suffer from a depressing lack of conviction that there is absolute truth that stands above and beyond personalities. For the average Christian, including elders, FEELINGS are ultimately more important than objective truth. If something makes us feel bad, then by definition, it must BE bad. This widespread attitude, again adopted from our pagan culture, undermines effective church discipline and destroys the integrity of a church trial. Even secular courts realize that there are two basic elements to a fair trial; facts and law; the Judge interprets the law, and the jury determines the facts. Regardless of how a judge may “feel” about a particular felon, the issue is whether the facts are accurate and the law has been broken. Shrewd lawyers therefore attempt to pervert justice by appealing to the emotions of the jurors.

But we ought to do better in ecclesiastical courts. The “law” is the Law of God which is objective and clear. The “facts” ought to be evaluated to determine whether it can be PROVED that the accused has broken that law. But often, the feelings of the members of the court towards the accused are more important than whether they can prove he actually broke God’s Law.

There was a case in the OPC a few years back wherein a man was excommunicated for being “contentious.” I was called in as outside counsel on the case. In my own opinion, as I looked at the “facts” and compared them with the “law” it seemed clear (to me anyway) that the real problem was that the accused had been making people angry for years. Rather than follow the steps of Matthew 18:15 and Galatians 6:1ff and work with this individual eventually, the session just got fed up with him and wanted him out of their church (and if I had been a member of that session I might have “felt” the same way).

The negative disposition of the court then became the primary source of his conviction. The individual in question took the case all the way to General Assembly, weeping as he gave his testimony and repenting of any and all sins. The case was returned to the session for handling. When he formally repented before the session, they insisted on “fruits of repentance.” They said he was not really repentant, unless he repented of appealing the case to Presbytery and General Assembly. When he responded to the effect, “But it was my RIGHT to appeal” they said that attitude demonstrated he was not really repentant. The excommunication was therefore maintained.

Now I am not here trying to second guess the session, and I was not present at this final meeting. There could well be other factors of which I am ignorant that might put this case in a different light. But it certainly appears as if the negative disposition of the court overruled their sense of justice. They had a “problem child” but rather than follow Matthew 18:15 and other relevant passages, used the authority of the church courts to get rid of him.

Finally, there is an authoritarian mindset amongst many Christians that manifests itself in the attitude that if “the church courts have spoken” it is rebellion and contumacy to speak or take a stand against injustice. In the modern era of autonomy and individualism, there is an argument that can be made that sometimes, when conscience is not at stake, a man ought to submit to even unjust adjudication (cf. 1 Peter 2:18-20). However, there must be some balance point between autonomy and compliance. The Nuremburg trials held to prosecute Nazis insisted that “simply following orders” is not a legitimate defense for committing criminal acts. In the same way, a court may err (in the fact the Westminster Confession insists that courts will err), but that does not mean that the average elder ought to just roll over and accept it. I have been told by moderators of Presbytery, that when Presbytery committed an immoral, unconstitutional action, I was MORALLY bound to submit to the brethren and that I was contumacious if I refused, even if my conscience was violated in the process. This “exhortation” was clearly contrary to both the Constitution and the Westminster Confession.

There are procedures in the BCO (or OPC Form of Government) for registering a dissent or protest against the actions of a court when one believes it to have erred. Sadly, this procedure is seldom used in most presbyteries because the very action of dissenting or protesting is seen as “rebellion.” The simple process of standing up to sign a dissent or protest is to risk incurring the animosity of the assembly, and therefore injustice goes unrecorded, let alone unconfronted.

Hence, there is no simple solution. Wicked men gravitate to power and will use that power in unlawful ways. The average presbyter might well be sincere in his own mind (i.e., not intending to commit any wicked act) but either be manipulated by those in power, afraid to stand against the group, or just too lazy to think for himself. He may well be “sincere” but more influenced by his “feelings” rather than by objective principle. For all these reasons (and others) those entrusted to give justice, rebuke error, protect the innocent or convict the guilty may fall short.

Ultimately, we must all recognize there is no “perfect” justice outside of eternity. Yet at the same time, we can work to analyze how we arrive at judicial decisions, and whether we are falling into the errors detailed above. We can work to make sure we understand both the “law” and have an objective basis for evaluating “facts.” Even so, sometimes the guilty will go free, and the righteous will be wrongfully convicted. But surely there is a difference between occasional mistakes and systematic perversions of justice? And until we have men of conscience and integrity, grounded in the Word, committed to objective truth and willing to take a stand despite peer pressure and conformity behavior, our courts will twist justice, and inhibit the Kingdom.