By Brant Bosserman | January 12, 2024
Please note that the Editorial Board of Presbyterian Polity does not necessarily endorse all views expressed on the blog of this site, but the editors are pleased to present well-crafted position papers on issues facing Presbyterian churches and denominations. What follows is one such paper for our readers’ consideration. ~ The Editors
For a downloadable and printable .pdf version of this article, please click here.
In 2023, the PCA General Assembly considered an overture that would allow those who deny the existence of God and/or a future state of reward and punishment to testify in her courts. This would render it unnecessary for witnesses to swear, or explicitly affirm before God that they will tell the truth. The rationale for amending the Book of Church Order conditions (BCO 35-1, 35-8) for a “competent witness” was straightforward. Would not the Lord and Savior of the Church, whose name is Truth (Jn. 14:6), allow as many true witnesses to testify in His courts as possible? The victim of abuse by a church member would typically be among the most important witnesses to that crime. Yet, the victim may be an atheist. Ultimately, the overture was defeated by a slim margin. That the vote was unsettling to a large portion of the assembly was clear from the many signatories of the minority report in favor of the overture. Some have suggested that a theological test for witness competency is but a manmade tradition, the likes of which Jesus, not to mention the apostles and prophets, condemned (Matt. 15:1-14; Mk. 7:1-13; cf., Isa. 29:13; Col. 2:21-23). If the Lord Jesus would have His church admit atheist testimony, then not only must the BCO undergo amendment, but the Presbyterian Church in America must also repent for an injustice it has allowed to exist for decades.
Sharing my brethren’s longing for truth to prevail in PCA courts, it will come as a surprise to many that I am compelled to oppose recent efforts to remove the oath requirement. The Scriptures are unambiguous that Jesus Christ, the Head of the body has ordained oaths for the preservation of the truth, and for the protection of all parties in a world smitten by depravity and dishonesty. In short, oaths are a divine ordinance, whereby a competent witness (a) acknowledges God as the lone sufficient Reason to tell the truth; and (b) the lone sufficient Helper who can make the truth prevail. Invocation of the Almighty brings a weight of burden to the human conscience altogether different from manmade ethical codes. The same invocation reflects the humble awareness, without which no witness can be competent, that even the most principled people need divine help to overcome the human proclivity to falsehood and error. Most importantly, oaths (even false ones) effectively seize upon the Living God’s providence to vindicate the truth, in a manner that the strongest human resolve cannot. Unfortunately, too many arguments for (and against) atheist testimony betray a lack of regard for the divine function of oaths, not to mention the depths of human depravity which necessitate them.
Human Depravity and Truth Telling
An underlying assumption in most of the GA discussion concerning oaths seems to have been that humanity is divisible into two groups—those who are competent, in themselves, to testify in a court, and those who are not. Does it occur to proponents (and opponents) of the overtured change that the situation is rather more dire? The Scriptures teach us that Epimenides’ evaluation of his countrymen is no less true of humanity: “Cretans are always liars” (Tit. 1:12; cf., Rom. 3:4, 13; Ps. 116:11). On its surface, Epimenides’ statement is something of a paradox. It might seem that it cannot be true, since the poet was himself a Cretan whose own speech, if the statement were true, must always be false! Yet, speaking via the Apostle Paul, the Holy Spirit adds His infallible witness that Epimenides’ “testimony is true” (Tit. 1:13). The Holy Spirit is neither affirming a flat contradiction, nor encouraging muddled thinking (1 Cor. 14:23). “Always” might be hyperbole, in which case Epimenides’ statement may be true despite the prevalence of Cretan dishonesty. More attractive is the solution that recognizes a subtle but important distinction. Epimenides does not declare that Cretans’ every statement is a lie, but that Cretans are, at all times, liars. It is very much in keeping with the theology of Paul (and the rest of Scripture) to declare that men who make innumerable true statements are always lying in other respects: suppressing their knowledge of God (Rom. 1:18; Jn. 1:9-10); underestimating their sin (Rom. 2:1-8; Lk. 18:11); overestimating their gifts and abilities (Rom. 12:3, 16; 2 Cor. 10:12); deceiving themselves about the extent of their virtues (Gal. 6:3); twisting the Scriptures for selfish gain (2 Pet. 3:14; Matt. 15:5-6); overlooking the most significant details of an enemies’ good character to justify hostility toward him (Jn. 7:24; 12:37-40); indeed, transgressing the Ninth Commandment in all the ways listed in Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 145. Common grace prevents fallen men from lying every time they speak, even though they are always liars. It is exactly because sinners recognize, utilize, and publish true information in medicine, physical sciences, mathematics, ethics, business dealings, etc., that they are culpable for their unrelenting dishonesty about the most important (Christian theistic) implications of every fact.
It is true that personal interests are often sufficient to prevent fallen people from making false statements, especially when they might conflict with well-established truths or admit for simple investigation. Lies of this sort can easily be exposed and met with social or legal repercussions (Matt. 21:25-27; Mk. 11:31-33; Lk. 20:5-8; Rom. 13:1-4; 2 Pet. 2:13-14). Thus, the courts of the Presbyterian Church in America have always accepted police reports, receipts for monetary transactions, public records, etc. as admissible evidence, regardless of whether the person who initially recorded them professes belief in God. Again, the public nature of the information combined with the penalties that accompany inaccurate recording are appropriately counted as a sufficient guarantee of their veracity, until and unless one can cite reasons to doubt them. The situation is quite different when it comes to witness testimony. Witnesses are brought forward in courts to testify (a) about disputed matters, (b) of considerable consequence, (c) to which the public lacks direct means of investigation. From the outset, the veracity of a witness’s testimony is challenged by the accused, if not others as well (1 Kings 3:16-22; Jer. 26:16-18; Acts 24:13). At least one party must be badly mistaken at best or lying at worst. The Scriptures warn us about false accusers and “malicious witnesses” (Ps. 35:11; cf. Gen. 39:13-23; Ex. 23:1; Esth. 3:8; Ps. 27:12; Prov. 19:5; Acts 6:11), of whom Satan is the chief (Job 1:11; Rev. 12:10). Other scoundrels are not their only targets, but often men of considerable integrity (Joseph, David, Job, Stephen, etc.), not to mention the God-man, Jesus Christ (Matt. 26:59-61; Mk. 14:55-59) along with His Father and Spirit (Gen. 3:4-5). The Mosaic requirement that false witnesses shall incur the punishment they sought for the accused functioned as a weighty deterrent against that crime (Deut. 19:18-19; cf., 1 Tim. 1:9-11). Lesser penalties for perjury in civil courts still exist today. Noticeably, church courts lack the same deterrent, particularly in the case of non-member and atheist witnesses. To them, PCA courts cannot apply any penalties; nor may atheists experience any social repercussions for dishonesty. Of even greater significance is the fact that not even civil courts regard their penalties to be a sufficient safeguard against false testimony. Instead, the requirement of a divine oath in civil courts reflects the bearing of natural law, imposed on the human conscience by God, and heeded by nearly all cultures.[1]
The very same personal interests that prevent lying in cases where one is likely to be caught may be the source of dishonesty in matters difficult to investigate, or in which one simply has much to gain from deceit (Lk. 16:3-8). These include false suspicion about enemies, which the wayward heart treats as fact (1 Sam. 18:9; 22:8); reports and recollections of events lacking other witness (1 Kings 3:6-22; Jn. 21:23); personal, unrecorded business dealings (Amos 8:5-6; Jas. 5:4); welcome lies, that are sure to go uninvestigated by the relevant communities and courts with whom they are registered (Matt. 26:59-61; Mk. 14:55-59); etc. Somewhere between willful deception and error is the human tendency to remember only those truths that we find useful, disregarding inconvenient details. Apart from any conscious effort, fallen men often discern the interests of a community with lightning speed, and proceed to share only the information that the community welcomes (1 Sam. 22:9-10; 2 Tim. 4:3). For example, atheist philosopher, Bertrand Russell incorrectly recalls Titus 1:12-13 as a clear instance of Biblical “contradiction.”[2] He cites the passage as if Epimenides reported that Cretans only speak lies when, as we have seen, the poet wrote that they are always lying. If one of the most brilliant philosophers of the 20th century can misrepresent the facts, exactly what is the profile of a competent witness?
Given the inadequacy of self-interests to ensure that men will tell the truth; given that the human “heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick” (Jer. 17:9); given that “all [mere] men are liars” (Ps. 116:11), and always lying (Tit. 1:12), it is misguided to ask the question, “how can church courts refuse atheist testimony, which may very well be true?” The quandary is just how any court, civil or ecclesiastical, can rely on human witnesses at all when it comes to matters that are sharply disputed from the outset. If men like Epimenides are the most credible when they testify to their dishonesty (Tit. 1:13); if men are the most deceived when they insist on their own intelligence and integrity (Prov. 3:7; 14:12; 16:21, 25), how can anyone be judged a competent witness to the difficult and disputed matters before courts? To this problem, faced by men in every corner of a fallen world, the Living God ordained oaths and vows as a genuine remedy.
Westminster Confession 22, “On Lawful Oaths and Vows”
In the course of a Lord’s Day sermon, I asked my congregation who would mention “Lawful Oaths and Vows” as one of the major headings under which to summarize the Christian Faith? Not one parishioner raised his hand. I suspect it also strikes many church officers as odd that the Westminster Divines devoted so much attention to that topic.[3] Yet, the Westminster Divines’ careful discussion of the ordinance (WCF 22, WLC 111-114, and WSC 53-56) was equitable to the teaching of Scripture. God ordained personal vows and public oaths as a powerful means to confirm a matter, even safeguarding against human deceit and error. Oaths may be “promissory,” attesting to one’s determination to perform some future action(s), or “assertory,” attesting to one’s resolution to tell the truth about past events (2 Chron. 18:13 Matt. 26:63).[4] Reserved for matters of great consequence (Jer. 4:2), vows or oaths belong to marriage covenants (Mal. 2:14; Prov. 2:17); binding agreements between individuals (Ex. 22:11; 1 Sam. 18:3; 23:16-18; 2 Sam. 2:12-25), families (Gen. 21:22-34; 26:26-33; 1 Sam. 20:2-17), and nations (Gen. 14:13; 1 Kings 5:12; 15:19; 20:34; 2 Chron. 16:3); covenants between a populace, or a military with its leaders (2 Sam. 5:3; 11:17; 2 Kings 11:4; 1 Chron. 11:3; 2 Chron. 23:1, 3, 16; Jer. 34:8-11); and even covenants between God and men (Gen. 22:16-18; Ex. 24:3; Isa. 45:23; Heb. 6:13-14). The courtroom, civil and ecclesiastical, is a distinct setting where assertory oaths are justly required (Lev. 5:1; Prov. 29:24; 1 Kings 22:16; 2 Chron. 6:22-23; 18:13, 15), Jesus Himself bearing testimony only after He was adjured (Matt. 26:63[5]).
An oath is a safeguard because of its two indispensable, mutually supportive functions. First, an oath calls on God as the lone sufficient power by whom the truth can be made to prevail in one’s testimony, and in the judgment of the court. Second, an oath acknowledges God as the lone sufficient reason why the truth must be told.
WCF 22:1—A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth on God to witness what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.
Oaths Call on God as the Lone Sufficient Power
The first function of an oath, according to Westminster Confession 22:1, flies in the face of the naturalistic materialism to which our age is prone. Although men can tell the truth, they are also accustomed to the opposite. Therefore, to confirm that they will tell the truth, God allows men to invoke His name, calling Him to bear providential witness by directing their testimony to its proper end. In other words, the oath-taker is not merely calling on the Divine Judge to take notice of his testimony. If that were the meaning of, “solemnly calleth on God to witness,” the statement would be superfluous. For, God’s awareness of our oaths is sufficiently presupposed in the clause that follows, where God is invited to “to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.” Instead, the earlier clause indicates that oaths call God to active witness, ensuring that the oath-taker’s words will be accurate, and that his avowed actions will come to fruition. This reading is confirmed beyond all doubt by a consultation of those divines whose writings inspired; whose efforts produced; and whose subsequent writings interpreted WCF 22. They uniformly testify that oaths have two functions, one of which is to “beg his [God’s] help” in confirming the truth of our witness.[6] This concept is even retained in contemporary civil courts, where many witnesses still affirm their intent to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”
The proof texts cited in the original (and PCA) Westminster Confession also testify to the active divine witness upon which oaths call. Solomon prays that God will respond to oaths sworn before the bronze altar, at the gate of the temple where trials would occur (cf., Jer. 26:2, 16-19). Specifically, he asks God to cause the honest oath-taker to prevail, and the perjurer to fail within the course of the court’s proceedings (2 Chron. 6:22-23). A typical Old Testament oath formula began, “As the Lord lives” (Isa. 5:2; cf., Ruth. 3:13; Judg. 8:19; 1 Sam. 14:39, 45; 19:6; 20:21; 1 Kings 2:24; 22:14; 2 Kings 2:4; Jer. 4:2; 12:16; 44:26). The one who swore it was calling on the LORD whose life is certain, to make the fulfillment of his oath certain as well (Num. 14:21, 28; Deut. 32:40; Isa. 49:18; Jer. 22:24; 46:18; Ezek. 5:11; 14:16, 18, 20; 16:48; 17:16; 18:3; 20:3, 31, 33; 33:11, 27; 34:8; 35:6, 11; Zeph. 2:9; Rom. 14:11). When God’s people rebelled against Him, they ceased to swear in His name. They lost confidence that their neglected LORD would actively confirm their oaths (Jer. 44:26-27). Again, when Paul calls on “God as [his] witness” (2 Cor. 1:23; cf., Rom. 1:9; 9:1; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8; cf., Jer. 42:5), he is not simply asking God to take note of his words with a view to judging them. Paul pleads for God to authenticate his stated desire to edify the suspicious congregations to whom he wrote, by imparting to credulity to his claims.
Oaths Call on God as the Lone Sufficient Reason
If they were only pleas for divine assistance, it would be beneficial to attach oaths to all our commitments, as expressions of the sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer—“…deliver us from evil” (Matt. 6:13; cf., WLC 195). While the Scriptures require that we “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17; cf., Eph. 6:18), we are never instructed to “oath without ceasing.” Quite the opposite. Christ is clear that with respect to mundane matters men should “make no oath at all” (Matt. 5:34; cf., Jas. 5:12; Prov. 20:25; Eccl. 5:5). This points us to the second function of oaths. They are always self-maledictory, invoking God as a “a Revenger” if we should break them.[7] This follows from the third commandment: “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes his name in vain” (Ex. 20:7; Deut. 5:11; cf., Ex. 31:13-16; Lev. 26:2; Deut. 28:58; Zech. 5:3-4).
The Westminster Catechisms call our attention to the “reason” annexed to the Third Commandment (WSC, 56; cf., WLC, 114). God Himself, in His capacity as judge, is the lone sufficient Reason why an oath-taker must devote the most focused efforts to bear honest witness (Deut. 23:21, 23; cf., Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Job 22:27; Eccl. 5:4). Whereas cunning liars may manage to “escape punishment from men, yet the LORD our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgment” (WSC, 56). Some oaths are accompanied by specific curses (Num. 5:19-31; Ruth. 1:17; 1 Sam. 20:13-14; 25:22; 2 Sam. 3:9; 1 Kings 2:24; 2 Kings 6:31; Ezek. 16:59; Zech. 5:4). All oaths presuppose God’s threat of punishment, as an omnipotent and omniscient Judge. The Bible supplies ample and frightening testimony to God’s faithfulness in punishing broken oaths (2 Kings 5:17-27; Jer. 34:8-22), even centuries after they were first sworn (Josh. 6:26-27 with 1 Kings 16:34; Josh. 9:26-27 with 2 Sam. 21:1). Alternatively, God promises to bless oath-keepers, especially with deeper fellowship with Himself (Lev. 26:11-12; Ps. 63:11; Isa. 19:18; 45:23; 65:16). In the Old Covenant, the appropriate response to divine deliverance was to vow a sacrificial feast in God’s presence. The votive offering served as a public witness to God’s faithfulness (Lev. 7:16; 22:18-23; Deut. 12:6-7; 50:14; 61:5; 65:1; 116:14, 18; cf., Job 22:27). In the New Covenant, the Lord’s Supper is a taste of that celebratory meal Christ vowed to enjoy after being vindicated by His Father and Spirit in the resurrection (Ps. 22:25; Lk. 22:18).
Oaths Are the Seal of Witness Competency
As the BCO (35-1) makes clear, witness competency is not ultimately defined by a person’s ability to tell the truth. The standard parties deemed incompetent—young children, the mentally ill, the intoxicated—frequently tell the truth. Nor is abnormal intelligence sufficient. A competent witness must also manifest good character,[8] at the heart of which is the humility to recognize that he needs divine help to accurately report the truth concerning disputed matters. Hence, a competent witness must understand the seriousness of the court’s proceedings, and the ramifications for himself and others if he should (a) intentionally, or (b) unintentionally misrepresent the truth. Acknowledgment of God as Judge is the lone sufficient reason why witnesses should not lie intentionally; and reliance on God as Helper is the only ground of hope that a witnesses will not bear false report inadvertently. Hence, the atheist who cannot swear the assertory oath required in BCO 35-8 is necessarily excluded from a court’s proceedings as an incompetent witness.
Consider first the atheist’s inadequate reason(s) for truth-telling. Although the atheist witness may have reasons which he deems sufficient for telling the truth, he strictly lacks any reasons that should compel a court to believe that he will do so. The explanation is simple. He denies the existence of any Being who can impose consequences for lying, that on every permutation of men’s fleeting preferences will be painfully undesirable. Moreover, he refuses to acknowledge the divine Being who promises to bless honesty with rewards that transcend the foreseeable consequences of his actions. This means that the atheist’s stated reason(s) for why he will bear true witness always terminate on his own unstable preferences and calculations. It matters not whether he should testify to his lifelong devotion to Platonic ideals, Kantian categorical imperatives, or a self-imposed moral code. These rules are not the ultimate reason for his most thoughtful behaviors. His volatile motives and choices are the ultimate reason for why the rules have bearing (for now) on his actions. Given his most fundamental commitments, there is no reason why the atheist should not act as Nietzsche’s “superman,” determined to make new rules of conduct rather than heed outdated mores. He repels the only Being who serves as the immutable reason for moral action. Still worse, avowed disbelief in God is a mark of folly and hubris (Ps. 10:4; 14:1; 36:1; 53:1; Prov. 3:5; 14:12; 16:25). A finite and admittedly fallible man, unaided by His omniscient Creator, simply cannot know whether he has missed something pivotal in his evaluation of reality; or worse yet, that he has been fundamentally hostile to natural revelation which unambiguously attests to the Creator (Rom. 1:17ff.; cf., Ps. 36:9; Ps. 19:1; Jn. 1:9; Acts 1:17). All the same cannot be said for the witness who acknowledges God. In contrast to the fluctuations of civil codes (Dan. 7:25; Hab. 1:4), philosophical systems (Acts 17:21; Isa. 5:20), and personal resolutions (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29), God’s unchanging character and moral law are forever and universally binding (Rom. 2:13-15). The cynic will object that the believer, as well, has his own volatile choices to thank as the ultimate reason why God’s moral law has been allowed to guide his actions. In so objecting, the cynic merely begs the question. He assumes rather than proves that man is an autonomous, solipsistic cage unto himself. On the presupposition that God exists and that men are His created image-bearers, there can be no doubt that prior to man’s wishes, God impresses His law, and His promised rewards and punishments on the human conscience (Rom. 2:14-15; WLC, 92). The “fear of the Lord” may be the beginning of a person’s reasoning (Job 28:28; Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7; 9:10; 15:33; Eccl. 12:13); and that Beginning is objectively more stable and stabilizing than fundamental reliance upon man’s fallen and finite perspective (Matt. 7:24-29; Prov. 3:5-6; 14:12; 16:25; Isa. 5:21).
Second, the atheist who is determined to tell the truth cannot supply the court with grounds for hoping that he will not inadvertently misrepresent the relevant facts. For, he neither calls upon nor so much as acknowledges a transcendent Power beyond himself who can direct his witness like an arrow to the target. How can a church court suspend its own awareness that “we all stumble in many ways” (Jas. 3:2), and trust the atheist, who relies solely on his own best efforts, to tell the truth? The atheist refuses to call upon God, who alone can disabuse him of false impressions that he may have developed about the disputed matters in question (Prov. 3:7; 14:12; 16:1, 25; 21:2; Jn. 7:24), not to mention the self-deception to which he may have succumbed thereafter (Jer. 37:9, 42:20; 49:16; Obad. 3; Matt. 7:3; 1 Cor. 3:18; Gal. 6:3; Jas. 1:26). By contrast, the more devoutly one holds to the Biblical doctrines of man and God, the more he will appreciate the necessity of swearing an oath in the appropriate contexts. In addition to the fact that God prescribes oaths (Ex. 22:11; Deut. 5:13; 10:12; Ps. 50:14; 76:11; WCF 22:2), the believer has been taught to sing and pray, “who can discern his errors? Acquit me from secret faults” (Ps. 19:12; cf., 139:23-24). He knows that God would not be unjust in the least to permit him to be “assaulted, foiled, and for a time led captive by temptations” to lie (WLC 195), as were Ahab’s prophets (1 Kings 22:22-23) and even the Apostle Peter (Matt. 26:69-75; Mk. 13:66-72; Lk. 22:54-62). The godly man will be the last to cite his own intelligence, integrity, or track-record as sufficient proof of his competence as a witness. Not even the Lord Jesus appealed to these things. To those hostile audiences who called into question His sanity (Mk. 3:21-22; Jn. 7:20; 8:48-52; 10:20; cf., Matt. 9:34; 12:24; Lk. 11:15), Jesus grants that, “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.” For others to regard Him as competent and credible, the Lord Jesus knew that His Father and Spirit must superintend His entire ministry, adding their testimony to His: “My testimony is true…for I am not alone in it, but I and My Father who sent Me” (Jn. 8:14, 16). No less can be true of Christ’s disciples. They know their need of God’s help, over and above the weight of His threats and promises, to superintend their performance of duty in that solemn court-room context that portends the final judgment.
Oaths Are Necessary
One might concede that an oath sworn with understanding and humility is a sufficient condition to mark out a competent witness but deny that it is a necessary one. Three rationales have been given for why a witnesses need not invoke the Living God to be deemed competent. It is alleged that: (1) Scripture nowhere requires courtroom witnesses to swear an oath; (2) God promises to punish liars regardless of whether they have sworn in His name (Prov. 19:5, 9; cf., Ps. 101:5; Rev. 21:8); and (3) courts have the right to adjure witnesses, effectively placing them under oath, apart from their active swearing.
The first ground of objection is false. An oath is the divinely appointed means of “confirmation” that one will perform a duty of great consequence, putting “an end to every dispute,” until and unless an oath has been broken (Heb. 6:16). On this point natural law (Heb. 6:16), and God’s example of swearing by Himself are in perfect agreement (Heb. 6:13-18; Gen. 22:16; Deut. 32:40-41; Ps. 89:35; Isa. 45:23; 62:8; Jer. 22:5; 49:13; 44:26; 51:14; Amos 4:2; 6:8; 8:7). Thus, the Bible everywhere presupposes that oaths belong to court proceedings, whether civil or ecclesiastical (Lev. 5:1; Prov. 29:24; 1 Kings 22:14-16; 2 Chron. 6:22-23; 18:13, 15; Matt. 26:63). What, after all, stands in greater need of confirmation than a witness’s competence to testify about disputed events, in a trial that may result in the application of civil penalties or church censures? The second ground makes for a non sequitur. The fact that God will punish liars does not constitute a reason why an atheist witness, who suppresses belief in those threats, should be trusted to tell the truth. Nor does it remedy the problem that atheists cannot exercise the humility to invoke the Divine to keep them from error. Finally, true as it is that civil and ecclesiastical authorities may place certain parties under oath (Lev. 5:1; 2 Chron. 36:13; Prov. 29:24; Matt. 26:63; Ezek. 17:15-16), this prerogative only extends to those under their authority. An atheist can no more be adjured by a church involuntarily, than a US citizen dwelling in Arkansas can be adjured by the Supreme Leader of North Korea. A US citizen might be adjured by a foreign government if he has crossed into its borders, but for this scenario there is no analogy in Christ’s Church, whose country is in heaven (2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 11:16; 12:22-23). Paul may “adjure” the Christian churches of Thessalonica to have his letter read publicly (1 Thess. 5:27). Is anyone under the illusion that Paul could have adjured Caesar to do the same?
The Validity of Anabaptist Testimony
Against the aforesaid necessity of oaths, some have noted that the PCA BCO already allows a witness to refuse them. Conscientious of Anabaptists who believe that Jesus strictly prohibits oaths (Matt. 5:34-37), the BCO permits a court to extract from them an “affirmation” of intent to tell the truth. If the BCO allowed Anabaptists to affirm nothing more than their intent to tell the truth, the provision would indeed be at odds with the Scriptural and Confessional doctrine of oaths. In reality, the BCO requires Anabaptists to affirm the substance of an oath: “The oath or affirmation to a witness shall be…in the following or like terms: Do you solemnly promise, in the presence of God that you will declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, according to the best of your knowledge in which you are called as witness, as you shall answer it to the great Judge of the living and the dead?” (BCO 35-8). The Anabaptists’ affirmation, therefore, must be married to an express acknowledgment of God (a) in His, capacity as Judge, as the ultimate Reason to tell the truth; and (b) as the providential Power in whose “presence” the court’s proceedings are superintended. Although the Anabaptist may not regard His affirmation as containing the substance of an oath, the PCA court is justified in concluding the opposite. For, many Scriptures indicate that God is sufficiently called to witness when the words “swear,” “oath,” and “vow” are not expressly used (Ex. 19:8; 24:3; Rom. 1:9). Nor is the PCA court guilty of trickery in extracting the substance of an oath from the Anabaptist. The same Anabaptist hermeneutic which concludes Jesus strictly forbade “swearing” requires the Anabaptist to solemnly confess belief in Christ as Lord and Judge whenever called upon to do so (Matt. 10:32-33). None of the same can be said of atheists who strictly deny that they are duty bound before God to the truth.
Oaths Deter a False Witness
Granting that a believer’s honest invocation of the Lord is powerful to protect their testimony, some have questioned an oath’s usefulness in deterring hostile parties from swearing in vain. We are reminded that those who are determined to bear false witness will not cower to lie about their belief in God, and to swear falsely by His name. This argument betrays the naturalistic perspective of which we have been critical. God never invites us to assess the efficacy or value of His ordinances by abuses of them. Moreover, the Scriptures supply abundant testimony to how frequently God thwarts oath-breakers, forcing them to achieve the opposite of their dishonest designs. When Jonathan extracted an oath from Saul not to kill David (1 Sam. 19:6) he gained more than empty words. Having invoked God’s name to witness that he would not be an instrument in David’s death, the Almighty conspicuously foils Saul’s many and frequent efforts to murder David (1 Sam. 19:9-10, 11-17, 20-24; 20:30-42; 22:23; 23:7-14, 25-29; 24:1-22; 26:1-25; 27:1-6). When Peter swears falsely that he does not so much as know Jesus, divine providence works against him so that his testimony is not at all convincing (Matt. 26:69-75; cf., Mk. 14:66-72). When false witnesses were brought forward to convict Christ at His trial, the Divine unravels their dishonest efforts so that they could not succeed at the basic task of telling a consistent and plausible lie (Mk. 14:55-59; Matt. 26:59-60).
For most of the Biblical story, God’s people carry on under the weight of their thrice repeated oath at the inauguration of the Mosaic Covenant—“All that the LORD has spoken we will do!” (Ex. 19:8; 24:3, 7). The exodus generation transgressed this oath by worshiping false gods (Ex. 32:1-8; Lev. 17:7; Num. 25:1-9); distrusting the LORD’s good motives for redeeming them from Egypt (Ex. 16:2-3; 17:3; Num. 14:2-3; 20:3); refusing to conquer the Promised Land (Num. 13:31-33; Deut. 1:20-37); etc. Their punishment, however, was not the successful abolition of the covenant. Rather, God curses them to know that He will cause their children to successfully perform what He requires, by conquering Canaan under Joshua’s leadership (Num. 14:31; Deut. 1:38-39; Josh. 21:45). Indeed, that conquest generation was uniquely obedient to the covenant (Judg. 2:6-10). After centuries of Israelite idolatry, the major prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel indict God’s people for being a faithless bride who has repeatedly and flagrantly transgressed her covenant with God (Jer. 3:1-5; Ezek. 16:8-63). How does God respond? He promises that He will make them obedient to their avowed obligations (Jer. 31:33; 32:39-40; Ezek. 36:26-27). Exercising His marital rights as a husband (Num. 30:6-8), God annuls Israel’s covenant with death itself (Isa. 28:18; cf., 28:14-15); first by protracting her lived experience of punishment, and second by making her rejoice in obedience (Isa. 29:22-23; 26:12). Ultimately, God the Father grants His people the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, as the fulfillment of His own and of Israel’s vows (Matt. 3:15; Jn. 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 8:29; Eph. 2:5-9); as the embodiment of the covenant itself (Isa. 42:6; 49:8; cf., Jer. 23:5-6). In other words, the Biblical story is about how God causes a disobedient nation to fulfill her oath despite her best efforts to the contrary.
Given the robust witness of Scripture, it would be tragic for the Presbyterian Church in America to succumb to the view that oaths do little to prevent determined liars from undermining her courts’ ends. We ought rather to believe that when scoundrels take the Lord’s name in vain, the living God will sooner unravel their false testimony than allow them to achieve their ends (2 Chron. 6:22-23). We ought rather to believe that in cases where God allows false witnesses to prevail, their invocation of the divine Name will leave an indelible weight on their consciences that leads them to repentance unto life; thus, achieving another one of the church’s ends, the salvation of the nations.
Non-Christian Theists May Be Competent Witnesses
The Biblical teaching that God responds to those who swear falsely in His name helps to explain why church courts may accept oaths sworn by non-Christian theists. The Westminster Confession (22:2) rightly affirms that it is sinful to swear by false gods (Josh. 23:7; Ex. 23:13; Ps. 16:4; Amos 8:14), or even to invoke God’s true name ignorantly (Jn. 4:22; Acts 17:23; WLC 113). Nevertheless, it is lawful for courts to accept oaths and vows in God’s name, taken by those who misunderstand, misrepresent, or even misidentify Him with a false deity. God is zealous for His reputation (Ex. 34:14; Ezek. 39:25), intent on vindicating His name even before those who profane it (Ezek. 39:7; cf., Ezek. 32:11-14; Num. 14:13-21; Deut. 9:26-29; Josh. 7:9; 2 Kings 18:36; Ps. 23:3; 25:11; 31:3; 79:9; 102:15; Ezek. 20:9, 14, 39, 44; 36:22-23; Jn. 17:21; 1 Jn. 2:12). Moreover, false religion still testifies to fallen man’s ineradicable fear of the Creator whom he has spurned (Jon. 1:4-17; Jn. 4:22; Acts 17:23). Thus, of men in general (and not just of the redeemed) it is said that “with them an oath given as confirmation is the end of every dispute” (Heb. 6:16). With Abimelech, a worshiper of false gods, Abraham could enter a binding covenant (Gen. 21:27) and Isaac could exchange oaths (Gen. 26:31). Although he was a polytheist, the Philistine King Achish calls the LORD to witness that he has found no fault in David (1 Sam. 29:6), and David appropriately receives his testimony. Again, when Laban covenants with Jacob (Gen. 31:44), he invokes the “God of Abraham and the God of Nahor, the God of their father” (Gen. 31:53). That Laban harbored inaccurate ideas about the LORD is evident from his idolatry (Gen. 31:5, 24, 42, 30, 53), and his mistaken identification of Abraham’s God with that of his father Terah, a polytheist (Josh. 24:2). Yet, it was by no means sinful for Jacob to seal his covenant with Laban with a sacrificial meal (Gen. 31:54-55). As William Perkins explains, “though Laban believed not God’s word revealed to the Patriarchs, yet he was bound in conscience to keep this oath even by the law of nature, and though he knew not the true God, yet he reputed the false God of Nahor to be the true God.”[9] To hold fast to the Scriptural teaching, the courts of the PCA must never allow witnesses to invoke the name of a false deity (WCF 22:2). Rather, non-Christians must swear by a generic name for God, acknowledging at least that He is “the great Judge of the living and the dead” (BCO 35-8).
No Atheistic Alternative to An Oath
Some have sought to develop an atheistic form of oath that might be suitable to church courts. As irony would have it, these efforts represent an overt transgression of Jesus’ teaching in the “Sermon on the Mount.” There, our Lord combats the subterfuge of crafting oaths which fall short of invoking divine vengeance for the oath-breaker (Matt. 5:33). In place of calling God to witness, Pharisees encouraged swearing by holy places, holy furniture, or even by one’s own head, etc. (Matt. 5:34-36; cf., 23:16-22). In place of inviting civil and/or divine penalty, the swearer was inviting others, if he should break his oath, to esteem him as lowly as if he had dishonored the object named. This sort of oath was a mockery because it implied that by (a) the mere multiplication of words, combined with (b) the paltry consequence of incurring a low regard from others, a person’s promise can be rendered the more credible. Instead, such an empty locution can only diminish one’s credibility (Eccl. 5:7; Prov. 10:19). It invites divine judgment since the swearer aims to avoid reference to the sovereign Creator who can infallibly hold him responsible (Jas. 5:12). Impossible as it was that such oaths were admissible in the civil and ecclesiastical courts of first century Palestine, Reformed exegetes have always understood Jesus to be focused on a manner of speech that prevails in informal contexts. With respect to this frivolous sort of swearing, we are strictly bound by the rule, “make no oath at all” (Matt. 5:34; cf., Jas. 5:12). Even more, this sort of swearing that invokes a creature in place of the Creator has no place in the courts of Christ’s church.[10] The modern trend of allowing non-theistic oaths in formal contexts ought to alarm us. It should not be taken as a source of inspiration for church practice.
How to Proceed
What course, then, should be taken if an atheist has witnessed a sinful offense by a church member? First, although church courts can and should adjudicate interpersonal offenses (1 Cor. 6:1-8), criminal matters that pose a public danger are of a different nature. When a concerned party has witnessed a congregant commit the latter, church sessions should encourage that party to have his report registered with the appropriate civil authorities. (In many matters dealing with minors especially, church officers are mandatory reporters.) The government is “a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil” (Rom. 13:4), including professed Christians. Second, in all cases a church prosecutor may gather any relevant evidence that an atheist can supply, as well as the names of others whom the atheist knows to have witnessed the events in question. After all, courts must always adhere to the minimum requirement of “two or three” witnesses and/or evidences (BCO 35-4; cf., 1 Tim. 5:19 Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16). Sessions may also conduct their own investigation into serious allegations leveled by any party. Third, a church court should gently challenge a potential atheist witness to seriously scrutinize his avowed disbelief in God. Could it be that he finds himself uncertain that God exists, but willing to believe the proposition? Wavering from unbelief is not a mark of bad character. Since God’s existence is the most evident fact in all reality (Rom. 1:20ff.; Ps. 19:1ff.), discomfort with atheism reflects tenderness to truth. The humility to believe in God, and to swear an oath in His name prior to possessing what one counts to be definitive theistic proof is enough to testify in a church court. Proponents of atheist testimony have challenged the PCA to consider that the alleged kindness of allowing atheists to participate in church courts could be instrumental in leading unbelievers to saving faith. Lamentably, they seem unwilling to contemplate that atheists may be won by our courts’ humble testimony that they distrust their ability to reach a wise verdict in sharply disputed matters, when witnesses refuse to invoke the Almighty as their ultimate Judge and most reliable Helper. God promises that faithful adherence to His Law will be a powerful witness to the nations (Deut. 4:5-9; Matt. 5:13-20), not well-intentioned aberrations from it.
A related matter pertains to how likely an atheist is to participate in church courts, given that they exist not to dispense just punishments, but censures designed for reclaiming wayward brethren.[11] First, an unbeliever is not at all likely to participate in the prosecution of lesser sins that might only earn the offender an admonition to godliness or indefinite suspension from the table. Instead, the value of a church court will be most evident to unbelievers when it comes to offenses that are serious, but non-criminal (e.g. adultery, manipulation, etc.). For, only in these cases do church courts promise repercussions that civil courts do not. Second, an unbeliever is the most likely to participate in a church court when the serious but non-criminal offender is a church officer. For, only in these instances may the court’s censures resemble something akin to a just penalty, resulting in some significant loss—deposition from office, and/or the ending of a career. However, (a) serious offenses, especially by (b) church officers are the most likely to have significant corroborative evidence. An officer’s bad character will typically be witnessed directly or indirectly by multiple congregants. Hence, reason alone might explain why, in the fifty-year history of the PCA, there is not one case in which a courts’ decision was clearly affected by the inadmissibility of atheist testimony. Still, an even better explanation for the Lord’s blessing on PCA courts is that they have faithfully adhered to His ordinances, extracting a divine oath as the seal of witness competency (Heb. 6:16).
Conclusion
In the middle of the 19th century, Charles Hodge reflected the ecclesiastical and civil consensus regarding witness competency: “If he does not believe that there is a God…if he does not believe that the Being knows what the juror says, or that He will punish the false swearer the whole service is a mockery. It is a great injustice, tending to loosen all the bonds of society, to allow atheists to give testimony in courts of justice.”[12] What can be credited for the contrary opinion as it has arisen within the PCA? Have 21st century presbyters made a new discovery that atheists can, in fact, tell the truth? Charles Hodge’s generation knew that perfectly well. Has Biblical exegesis yielded new insights that would overturn the longstanding conclusion that oaths before God properly belong to court proceedings? If so, the proponents of the BCO amendment have sufficiently kept these insights to themselves. A stronger explanation is that contemporary Presbyterians do not entirely appreciate the vital function of oaths. A stronger explanation is that we are reluctant to acknowledge that our unbelieving contemporaries, quite like the Cretans, are “always liars” (Tit. 1:12). A stronger explanation is that too many of us lack a healthy sense of our own proclivity to error and dishonesty. Wherever men acknowledge the Biblical teaching about human depravity; wherever men acknowledge the unique bearing of God’s name on the human conscience; wherever men trust in God’s promise to make truth prevail when His name is invoked, oaths will be required of all witnesses in church courts. May the PCA ever be filled with Presbyters who cherish these Biblical convictions.
[1] “The Word of God, as well as the common consent of all civilized nations, has attributed the highest degree of sanctity to the oath, and he that is not held by it has cut loose from all moral obligations. He that has no reverence for the awful name of God has severed the last tie which binds him to truth. He is an outlaw in the universe, a star of disastrous omen that has broken beyond the attraction of its central sun, and must be left to pursue its course unchecked by the only power that could keep it in its orbit.” James Henley Thornwell, “Vows,” in Collected Writings (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1986), 2:586.
[2] Bertrand Russell, My Philosophical Development (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1959), 77.
[3] In the middle of the 19th century, Thornwell lamented Protestants’ widespread neglect of the worshipful use of vows as an overreaction to Roman Catholic obsession with them. Thornwell, Collected Writings, 2:569.
[4] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 3:307.
[5] The Jewish court that tried Jesus was ecclesiastical, not civil. George Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod Blossoming (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1985), 14-15.
[6] Edward Calamy, A Practical Discourse Concerning Vows with a Special Reference to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (London, UK: Printed by Geo. Larkin, 1697), 4; cf., 5. Cf., William Perkins, A Discourse of Conscience, in Works (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage, 2018), 8:44; A Golden Chain, in Works, 6:90; An Exposition of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, in Works, 1:326; Richard Sibbes, An Exposition of Second Corinthians Chapter One, in Works (Carlisle, PN: Banner of Truth, 1981), 3:495; John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Carlisle, PN: Banner of Truth, 1991), 5:238.
[7] Perkins, A Discourse of Conscience, in Works, 8:44. Likewise, John Owen writes that oaths call down “Vengeance or punishment” on those who break them. Owen, Hebrews, 5:238. Sibbes observes that even when oaths only explicitly summon God for assistance (e.g. 2 Cor. 1:23), they always implicitly invite His wrath should we break them. Sibbes, Works, 3:493.
[8] Sibbes, Works, 3:493
[9] William Perkins, A Discourse of Conscience, in Works, 8:44. Likewise, John Calvin comments: “It is indeed rightly and properly done that Laban should adjure Jacob by the name of God. For this is the confirmation of covenants; to appeal to God on both sides, that he may not suffer perfidy to pass unpunished. But he sinfully blends idols with the true God…” Calvin, Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003), 1:2:181.
[10] Although it is appropriate for an oath-taker to reference creatures in the course of an oath sworn to God (2 Cor. 1:23; 2 Kings 2:4), the Reformed were of one mind against Romanism that oaths may never be sworn (a) in the name of a creature and/or (b) without clear reference to God (Deut. 6:13). Perkins, An Exposition of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, in Works 1:334.
[11] “…a spiritual court is for edification, a civil court for justice. A spiritual court aims at producing and fostering a given state of heart; a civil court is for the protection of rights[.]…Spiritual courts can censure, but not punish; civil courts punish without censuring.” James Henley Thornwell, Collected Writings (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1986), 4:305. Cf., Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod, 81-82.
[12] Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:307.
Dr. Brant Bosserman is a PCA Teaching Elder serving as Pastor of Trinitas Presbyterian Church in Woodinville, WA.