Sermon

Justice in the Gates

The Rev. Jack D. Bryant

Hope Unitarian Church

October 16, 2005

First Reading: Exodus 23:1-9

You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with the wicked to act as a malicious witness. You shall not follow a majority in wrongdoing; when you bear witness in a lawsuit, you shall not side with the majority so as to pervert justice; nor shall you be partial to the poor in a lawsuit. When you come upon your enemy's ox or donkey going astray, you shall bring it back. When you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden and you would hold back from setting it free, you must help to set it free. You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in their lawsuits. Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and those in the right, for I will not acquit the guilty. You shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the officials, and subverts the cause of those who are in the right. You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.

Second Reading: Isaiah 29:17-24

Shall not Lebanon in a very little while become a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be regarded as a forest? On that day the deaf shall hear the words of a scroll, and out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind shall see. The meek shall obtain fresh joy in the Lord, and the neediest people shall exult in the Holy One of Israel. For the tyrant shall be no more, and the scoffer shall cease to be; all those alert to do evil shall be cut off— those who cause a person to lose a lawsuit, who set a trap for the arbiter in the gate, and without grounds deny justice to the one in the right. Therefore thus says the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob: No longer shall Jacob be ashamed, no longer shall his face grow pale. For when he sees his children, the work of my hands, in his midst, they will sanctify my name; they will sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and will stand in awe of the God of Israel. And those who err in spirit will come to understanding, and those who grumble will accept instruction.

Third Reading: Deuteronomy 16:18-20

You shall appoint judges and officials throughout your tribes, in all your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, and they shall render just decisions for the people. You must not distort justice; you must not show partiality; and you must not accept bribes, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of those who are in the right. Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, so that you may live and occupy the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

Fourth Reading: Amos 5:14-15

Seek good and not evil, that you may live; and so the LORD, the God of hosts, will be with you, just as you have said. Hate evil and love good, and establish justice in the gate; it may be that the LORD, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.

Sermon

Justice in the gate. I love that phrase. I may have heard it before I went to seminary, but I didn’t know what it meant until I got there. Justice in the gate. Thousands of years ago in the land that today we call Israel cities of any significance had walls, and in the walls were gates. But they weren’t just gates. These were reinforced sections of the wall with a variety of rooms and structures built around them. And if you lived in those times and you felt you had been wronged and you wanted justice that is where you would go, for it was in the gate of the city where the King or arbiter or appointed judge would sit and hold court. The gate of the city was the equivalent of our modern day courthouse. “Justice in the gate” meant a court system free from corruption. “Justice in the gate” meant the arbiters or judges would not distort justice, show partiality, accept bribes or otherwise subvert the process of justice. “Justice in the Gate” meant there would be no perjury, no conspiring to provide false testimony; not following the majority will, but doing what was right, and not perverting justice - neither for the rich nor the poor. “Justice in the gate” meant equal justice for all regardless of social class, wealth or political party. And over and over and over the connection was made between fair government and justice in the gate. The political tyrant was always one who would deny justice in the gates.

Read the bible instead of reading about it and you will discover there is no theme that receives more attention than justice. For myself I have come to see justice as the primary theme of the bible. And that leads me to the conclusion that justice is the central theme of religion, which is why I believe it is the business of religion and the business of religious people to be concerned about the administration of justice - and in particular about who is appointed to the United States Supreme Court.

In the space of three months we have seen two nominations, one already approved. I am not surprised that John Roberts was approved as the new Chief Justice. I am not sure what will happen with the nomination of Harriet Miers. In both instances there have been religious concerns raised. With respect to John Roberts’ nomination it was questions from the political left about his religion that were quickly put down by those on the political right. Now that Harriet Miers has been nominated it is those on the political right asking questions about her religion.

But while justice is a concern of religion, the religion of the justice should not be a concern because regardless of the religious belief of a given judge, his or her obligation is to rule based on the law. But that is a significant part of the arguments from the religious right about American being a “Christian country”. Their line of reasoning goes like this: I am a Christian. This is a Christian country. I hold these particular views. Therefore, they are Christian views. It follows that judges should rule the way I want. The problem, leaving aside the fact that the factual assumptions are false, is that this line of argument or syllogism - regardless of the facts - is false and if you were to put such an argument forward on a logic exam, you would flunk. Unfortunately, I don’t think either side in the current debate understands this. What I find ironic is that the nomination of Harriet Miers has people from the extreme end of both sides of the political divide agreeing with each other - but for the wrong reasons.

One side is against her because they are concerned her church membership suggests how she will vote on the issues. The other side is concerned she is not ideologically committed to voting the way the other side fears. During the hearings for John Roberts it was those on the left who wanted him to answer questions about specific legal issues and his religious beliefs while those on the right said that was inappropriate. Now it is those on the right who want assurances she will vote their way. Ain’t politics wonderful? And therein lies the problem. Increasingly the legal system in our country, especially at the highest level, has become politicized - which means too many people have become convinced the courts should do what the majority wants - each side believing it is in the majority. And too often the courts are following suit. But,

You shall not follow a majority in wrongdoing; when you bear witness in a lawsuit, you shall not side with the majority so as to pervert justice. . .. (Exodus)

Those nothing in that passage from Exodus - or any other part of the readings this morning - that says justice is supposed to favor a particular position. It just says don’t follow the majority. In the case of the Supreme Court that means what you’re supposed to follow is the constitution. But somehow that, too, gets lost in the shuffle.

But as I listened to the arguments back and forth about who should be approved for the Supreme Court and the arguments from both sides about having judges who would abide by the wishes of the majority, it occurred to me that there are parallels with what goes on in churches - specifically, what goes on in the pulpits of churches.

Go to the typical church and you will hear the message the majority wants to hear. In this sense churches are highly political. What the people want is what the people get. If they don’t get it ministers are asked to leave. But that is not our tradition. You may or may not agree with what I have to say from this pulpit. But if you do agree with what I say, if the majority agrees with what I say, it’s not because that’s what the majority wants to hear. This is a free pulpit. That doesn’t mean anything goes. Not too long ago I heard someone say a free pulpit meant the congregation had input into what was said from the pulpit. That, of course, is precisely what the free pulpit is not. The congregation determines who holds the office of minister, they determine the person who is entrusted with the pulpit, but they don’t determine what will be said. That’s because the free pulpit is not a place where one is obligated to preach what the majority wants to hear, nor a place where one is free to say whatever one wants to say. It is the pulpit where one has the obligation to preach the truth as best one knows it, where one has the obligation and responsibility to preach from the heart. And what goes with it is the free pew. Not a free pew that allows you to believe whatever you want, but a place where you have the obligation and the responsibility to believe as your conscience demands.

The free pew and the pulpit - they cannot be separated from one another - are based on the premise that there is a higher authority than one’s personal wants and desires. Too often one’s personal wants and desires are little more than a Pavlovian response. If it feels good or tastes good or appeals to our personal prejudices we assume it is good. The same idea applies to justice and that is what concerns me the most about the current debate about Supreme Court Judges. Too many people on both sides are taking the same position. Too many people on both sides believe judges should be submissive to what the majority wants. Fundamentalist television preachers demand judges be more “democratic” and rail against life time appointments. What they mean is they want judges who will agree with them. Those on the other side insist judges must protect certain “rights” that are inalienable. Like the fundamentalist they want judges who will agree with them. But if that is what judges were like we would have a country where abortion was available on demand and compulsory prayer in public schools was the norm. We would have a country where school segregation was never overthrown. We would have a country declared by judicial fiat as a “Christian” country. We should, I think, be careful what we wish for because we might just get it.

A few days ago I was listening to NPR and heard an interview with Richard Engel, author of “A Fist in the Hornert’s Next.” Mr. Engel is a journalist who has been working in Iraq for several years. He speaks fluent Arabic which allows him an understanding of that country shared by few in his business. In the interview he was asked how the Iraqis were taking to democracy, an interesting topic on this day after the election to approve their constitution. He said the move towards democracy sounds great on the surface, but there’s a problem: What we mean by democracy is not what the Iraqis mean. We understand democracy as including protection of the rights of the minority. To the average Iraqi, said Mr. Engel, democracy means the majority has its way - absolutely. The idea of minority rights is not part of the popular vocabulary in Iraq - an indication of just how different their culture is from ours. What is lacking in Iraq is an understanding that the desire of the majority is different from the constitution. They do not recognize that a democratic constitution places limits on the will of the majority at the same time that it recognizes the power of the majority. And we have the same problem in our country. We say we want justice, but too many people on both sides of the political divide are asking for judges to interpret the constitution as if it just grants power and doesn’t place limits.

But questions about justice go beyond judges and who will be the next person on the U.S. Supreme Court because justice is the opposite of tyranny. Following the hurricanes on the Gulf coast there were a number of announcements that raised concern in my mind about justice - concerns that go hand in hand with my concern with Supreme Court nominations. The first was the report of numerous no-bid contracts going to large corporations with political ties to the administration. The second was the executive order by President Bush rescinding the provisions of the Davis Bacon Act. The first allowed exorbitant price gouging by corporations controlled by the wealthy and the powerful. The second cut wages for working people who will be employed to do the hard physical labor of clean-up and restoration. The combined purpose was to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. The combined purpose was to subvert justice, to favor tyranny over justice.

Justice is not about getting what you want. Justice is about the recognition that there is a higher authority to which we answer. It is about showing favor neither to the rich nor the poor. It is about not listening to the desire of the majority. It is about speaking the truth in the courts. It is about not making false and malicious charges. But where is such justice in our society today? We went to war on the basis of false charges - and it is now evident that the current administration knew or should have known the claims for going to war weren’t supportable. Those who protested have been the target of malicious charges and leaks that put lives in jeopardy. Perhaps indictments will be forthcoming, but we must wait and see. And while all this has been happening we have seen a pattern of decisions that have favored the wealthy at the expense of those who have less. And the irony of all this to me is that so much of this wrong doing is supported by people who claim they want a biblical society. This is one instance where I believe that is what we need - a society which really has justice in the gate. Amen.