Opening of Year Law Service 2008

Archbishop Peter Jensen | 29 January 2008

Font size: + - | print | email to a friend

‘He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath…’
- Romans 13:4

The autobiography of that distinguished comedian Mr Harpo Marx introduces a rather strange judicial figure from early twentieth century New York City, Judge Duffy. The teenage Harpo was imprisoned overnight for failure to pay a restaurant bill. Brought before the judge, Harpo tells us,

‘I had heard about Judge Duffy. “Old thirty days Duffy.” His reputation had spread throughout the city. Duffy’s brand of justice was swift and it was rough. He took a look at the back of your head. If you had a round haircut in back, which was a fad amongst the tough boys on the East Side, he gave you thirty days. Always thirty days, no matter what the charge or the defence. For years, if you were called in a poker game and you showed three tens, you said you had a “Judge Duffy.”

‘I had insisted that Frenchie give me a round haircut…

‘Sure enough, when they made me stand in front of the bench, the judge read the charge and said, “Turn around, Marx. Let’s see what kind of kid you are.”’

I will spare you the details of how Harpo was rescued from an injustice. In fact, the judge was not too far wrong because of other real offences committed by the defendant. On the other hand, I take it that we would think that Mr Duffy’s tendency to dispense his own brand of ‘swift and rough justice’ on the basis of hair style was always a travesty.

Wrong, but why? After all – it was not just a haircut, it was a badge of belonging to a group which constantly broke the law, often with impunity. Duffy’s justice got such malefactors off the street, benefited society and offered them a warning to fix their ways, lest a worst fate befall. It protected and corrected – two of the very aims of any system of punishment.

Could Duffy have been a servant of God? In the biblical view of the world, even Duffy was God’s agent: ‘there is no authority except that which God has established…(the one in authority) is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.’ (Romans 13: 1,4).

I am not saying that Duffy tried to be a servant of God, but then, nor is that implied in this passage. When it was written, there were very few magistrates who were the conscious servants of God. Furthermore, even amongst those who believe themselves to be God’s agents, injustice abounds, and the Bible knows it. After all, the Bible is the supreme text-book on human wickedness. The abuse of authority in the home, the community, the work-place, the law-court and by government are all documented in the Bible itself. Pre-eminently, of course, the central message of the Bible has to do with a man who was falsely accused and falsely arraigned and falsely assassinated all within the governing structures of the day.

In saying that ‘all authority comes from God’, and that those in authority are God’s servants for our good, the Bible has certainly not forgotten Pontius Pilate and King Herod. On the contrary, there are moments in the biblical record where authority is rightly defied, and there exist those noble words, ‘we must obey God, rather than man.’ The story of martyrdom, so different from that of suicide bombers, is the tale of those who take a stand and can do no other before the majesty of the State. Woe betide any authority which demands from the Christian conscience that which cannot be delivered up – actual, clear disobedience to God. The courage of those who accept the State’s authority to judge and penalise, while refusing to comply with that which is wrong, can turn civilisations on their head.

What then is the point of saying that ‘all authority comes from God’? The answer is twofold.

First, it is a reminder to us that bad as tyranny and bullying and injustice are, chaos, too, has its hellish aspects. It reminds us that authority is an indispensable element in the way in which God has set up human society at all levels. Authority which is true to God’s intentions is linked to the business of ‘taking responsibility for…’. Whatever our gifts and temperament, once we have assumed an office we have been given the duty of being responsible that certain goods prevail in the society which we have committed ourselves to. It is true that the abuse of such authority is manifold and unceasing, but in talking of the abuse we often neglect to see that, overwhelmingly, in the home or the court or the workplace or the State, much good is done by the assumption of responsibility on the one hand and the acceptance of this authority on the other. Failure to take responsibility is just as devastating as the abuse of responsibility or the unwillingness to acknowledge responsibility.

Second, the fact that all authority comes from God is a constant reminder to those of us who have great authority that we do not possess it by reason of our own strength or for our own aggrandisement, or to exercise it in any way we choose. If you are a man or woman of authority, it is because God has put you on that throne. The one whom he has set up he can as easily bring down. In any case, we have an accountability which surpasses any human jurisdiction. Our own conscience must judge us; but we have a Judge who surpasses conscience, the Lord God himself. It is under his eye that we exercise the authority we have been given at home or in the community. We can accept responsibility, because we are responsible to him.

This, I think is good news. I have been involved for some time in some unhappy arguments within the world-wide Anglican Church. One excellent essay I read was from an African Christian living in the US. The difference between the US and his country, he explained, was that in the US the law is enforceable. He illustrated this point by contrasting the fact that while there was an attempt to impeach the President of the US, he was being charged with a traffic violation. While the world’s most powerful man was having to struggle with his accusers, the author established his innocence in a local court, even though he was a foreigner and defended himself. He experienced in a very practical way the Rule of Law.

His thesis was this. Only in a society ruled by enforceable law, can men and women be free. The Americans can afford to divide their church. In parts of Africa, the same church is one of the very few institutions which actually helps sustain society. They cannot afford to split; they are not free to do so. This is not an argument for dividing churches, but it is an illustration that unruly and damaging chaos is kept at bay through the exercise of responsible authority and that this secures human freedom to dissent and be different.

In our own State I have seen this principle at work. I have seen our Judges withstand the most intense opposition in the arena of public opinion as expressed in the media, in order to defend the rights of individuals. More than that, the individuals in question had apparently forfeited all rights to respect or care for the way in which they had behaved. It is easy to stand up for the one who is popular: our greatest test comes when we defend the rights of those who have so offended public morality and dignity that they have no one to speak for them. If those in authority at that point believe that their greatest obligation is to public opinion, or even our political leaders, they will falter and fail and be no better than Judge Duffy.

Of course all of us in authority make mistakes, sometimes catastrophic mistakes. I know, too, that those who believe in no God can stand up for the truth in a way that puts many believers to shame. But, most of us will find it easier to do the right thing if we recognise that our authority comes from God and that we will account to him for the way in which we use it. Ultimately it is the rule of his law which is the safest rule of law, remembering that ‘love is the fulfilment of the law.’ (Rom 13:10)

Which returns us to Judge Duffy, a very flawed ‘agent of God’s wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.’ The idea that there is a wrath of God is certainly ‘an unpopular opinion.’ (I have an idea to steal the title ‘Unpopular Opinions’ from Dorothy Sayer for a book of my own. In my case it may not be difficult to find the subject matter!). We have to understand, however, that what it stands for here is not the uncontrollable, self-centred and irrational outburst of rage which may be our experience of human wrath. The wrath of God is his sustained and completely righteous judgement on evil. When we hope for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness will be the rule, it assumes that God in his wrath will eventually clean up the mess we have made of this world and provide a human environment in which truth and love will be paramount. There is such a thing as righteous anger, and God has it; he would be an apathetic idol, a figment of our imagination if he was not moved to anger at the things which anger us. The difference is that he has every right to be angry.

In the meantime even flawed human beings may be the agents of God’s wrath. But see the limits: agents not of prejudice, irrational anger, hatred, but agents, as far as we can be, of truth and righteousness. If Judge Duffy aimed to clean up the streets of New York and to offer a salutary lesson to the gang members, he was going about it the wrong way. Certainly, correction and protection may be the right consequences of punishment; but punishment must first of all be just. That we may metaphorically take an eye for an eye does not mean that we may take both eyes as a warning to others or a means of correcting the offender. The human person, no matter how depraved, is not the fit object of our creative experiments in social or personal regeneration.

Please forgive me, however, for appearing to lecture you on matters which you must have thought about deeply by very nature of your profession. I do have a motive for raising these subjects; I put it to you for your consideration. Directly or indirectly you are involved with the nature of punishment in this State and particularly the experience of imprisonment. You will be aware as I am that there is a growing number of persons incarcerated; you will know as I do that many of these person suffer from mental illnesses; you will know as I do that there is a serious disproportion of some groups; you will know as I do that attempts to rehabilitate prisoners are hardly adequate.

I know that a number of you take a close interest in these matters already. That is understandable. It is unhelpful to blame administrators, government or prison officers for the system which we have. If government is too sensitive to public demand for tough sentences, law and order, we in the public are to blame for being ill-informed and vociferous. If the government thinks that there are no votes in prison reform, it is our fault for not making it a matter of community concern. What we need is not blame, but responsibility. I am sure that, like me, you have a concern in this area. Could I urge you even more than ever to use your special knowledge and your influence to make sure that if you are involved in sentences of imprisonment you may do so with a clear conscience, confident that under the rules the sentence is a just one, given for the right reason, and that it does not involve a greater punishment than you intend?

I realise that you already aim for this. I, too, am a man with authority, more than I have sought and above my wisdom to exercise. I try not shrink back from a responsibility which calls for change where possible, change starting with myself. For myself, I find that I can only persevere because I can rely on God’s forgiveness through Jesus Christ. Strangely, the innocent victim of injustice has become the Lord of all and the mediator of God’s grace, and I am proud to be His servant. In His service I find true authority and true freedom, and I commend this service to you as well.