Previous | Next 

PERSONAL OPINION
The oath and the courts

John H. Redekop

There’s a growing movement across Canada to “usher God out of the courtroom,” as one news story put it. Some politicians and media types, as well as some academics, have championed this cause for several years. Now the trend has gained support even in the judiciary. In early March, the federal Justice Department released a letter written by Brosi Nutting, Chief Judge of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, in which he recommended the abolition of the tradition of swearing an oath on the Bible. He argued that there should be a simple promise to tell the truth.

Judge Nutting based his recommendation mainly on the fact that Canadian society has undergone “dramatic changes.” The judge has a point. Why should a majority of generally pro-Christian citizens force millions in the non-Christian minorities to recognize the significance of a holy book in which they do not believe?

While some briefing notes accompanying the letter indicate that Canadians are sharply divided on the question, early indications are that Judge Nutting’s proposal, supported by some other judges, may soon be adopted by the Canadian government. After all, already in 1995 a federal-provincial working group on multicultural and race relations in the justice system recommended such a change.

Some Christians object strenuously to such a policy change; more than a few are greatly upset. One indignant citizen wrote a letter of objection to the Justice Department. He lamented the possible shift and added, “I am not as upset about this as I am sure God is.” Doubtless more than a few Mennonite Brethren would criticize such a departure from tradition as further evidence of the secularization of society, of the masses turning their back on God.

That Christianity is increasingly being marginalized, even suppressed, can hardly be disputed. The evidence is overwhelming. Anti-Christian sentiment and policies are spreading in schools, in the media and in public life. But that fact does not mean that Christians should insist that, where Christian symbols and words have been used, such practices should invariably continue. After all, we surely would not endorse the use of Christian symbols and words to sell products or services for personal gain. Not every use of Scripture is commendable.

As I see it, Christians should not object if the Bible is removed from the courts. Mennonite Brethren, as evangelical Anabaptists, should certainly not be clamouring for its retention. Indeed, we should welcome such a change. We have, after all, been arguing all along that we do not want to be pressured to swear an oath in the courts. We have persistently requested that we, and others who share our views, should be allowed merely to affirm. In Canada and in some other countries, this request has been granted. More than once I have invoked this right. Why should we now insist that something which we do not want should, nonetheless, be retained for use by others?

Let’s review some relevant history. In the first Mennonite confession of faith, the Schleitheim Confession compiled in Schleitheim, Switzerland in 1527, one of the seven long articles dealt only with the oath. The five long paragraphs make a strong case against its use.

When the Mennonite Brethren Church was formed in 1860, a similar stance was adopted. This stance was incorporated as Article 65 in the first official MB Confession of Faith, approved in Russia and North America in 1900 and actually published in 1902. In North America, an English translation of the 1902 document was published in 1940. Article 65, which unequivocally rejects the use of the oath, quotes extensively from Matthew 5:33-37, James 5:12, Matthew 12:36 and Colossians 3:9. It asserts that “the King and Founder of the new covenant, has . . . forbidden the believers to swear an oath.”

A major revision of the MB Confession appeared in 1976. Article XIII, “Christian Integrity,” reduced the 21 lines in the 1902/1940 Confession to about five lines: “Although the swearing of oaths was permitted in Old Testament times, it is forbidden by Christ. Christians are obligated to speak the truth because they are always in the presence of God. Therefore, we simply affirm the truth in legal transactions.” This wording was retained in all later editions and revisions until the present.

The revision of our MB Confession of Faith currently in progress incorporates the same language in the new Article 12, “Society and the State.” Presumably it will be ratified by the next North American MB delegate convention.

In both the 1968 and the 1973 editions of the denominational guidebook Becoming Disciples: Membership Manual, the matter is also addressed, but only very briefly. The following words are added to a sentence in a section entitled “The Outer Life-Speech:” “nor should he swear or take an oath.”

Given our consistent denominational rejection of the oath and our persistent requests to use affirmation in its place, it would surely be logical for us to welcome the removal of the Bible from the courtrooms of the land. Unfortunately such removal may be caused by broadening rejection of Christianity, but we should, in my view, nonetheless support such a change in courtroom procedures.

We should not be clamouring for the retention of the Bible in courtrooms. There are other and better ways for us to witness to society and to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). Besides, we cannot, with integrity, have it both ways.

Previous | Next 

Last modified July 8, 1999.

© 2000 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.