Do you solemnly swear... ?
I have been thinking lately about Jesus' admonition in Matthew 5 about not swearing oaths, and the extent to which Quakers take it. The NET Bible version of this passage is:
5:33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not break an oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ 5:34 But I say to you, do not take oaths at all – not by heaven, because it is the throne of God, 5:35 not by earth, because it is his footstool, and not by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King. 5:36 Do not take an oath by your head, because you are not able to make one hair white or black. 5:37 Let your word be ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no.’ More than this is from the evil one.
To me, it seems to me that Jesus is speaking about telling the truth, and having to use an oath to say "This time I really *am* telling the truth". The problem I have is that we use oaths for more widespread uses than just "I am telling the truth." For example, if you participate on a jury in Dekalb County, Georgia, you take an oath. You are not swearing to tell the truth, you are swearing that you will listen to the testimony and put all prejudice aside. Now, if this oath ends with "so help me God", then I think it definitely conflicts with Jesus' admonition, but what if it doesn't?
When a witness is sworn in, he or she is asked to raise their right hand, and then asked "Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give is the truth" with no "so help you God" at the end. That seems a little gray to me.
What about the oath of office for an elected official? Here is the U.S. Presidential Oath of Office as specified by Article II, Section I of the Constitution (which calls it an "Oath or Affirmation"):
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
There is nothing that says you have to raise your hand or place it on the bible (there's an irony!). Would that make a difference? I was a little curious to see if either of the two Quaker presidents (Hoover & Nixon) opted for "affirm" instead of "swear". Interestingly, Hoover opted for "affirm" and was the second president to do so. Franklin Pierce was the first.
The reason this gives me such trouble is that once you get out of the realm of oaths as a statement of "I am telling the truth", it is hard for me to distinguish between that and a verbal contract. As far as I know, Quaker's don't have a problem with entering into contracts, so I am wondering what guidelines to use.
It feels to me like placing your hand on the Bible or saying "so help me God" is definitely out, but I am a little unsure about the phrase "do you swear". I think that even if the oath begins with "do you swear or affirm", if it ends with "so help me God" then it would still be the kind oath that Jesus is talking about. In fact, I think that if it is any promise that "*this time* I will behave differently than I have in the past" then it seems to be wrong. When it is a declaration that one understands and will follow the expected procedures, it seems more like a verbal contract than an oath, regardless of whether it is called an oath.
posted by Mark Wutka @ 8:53 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Your interpretation of what Jesus is saying here probably owes something to Quaker tradition. Quakers refrain from swearing oaths and often explain our stand in terms of a "single standard of truth." So from that I can see how you would feel that Jesus is talking about "haveing to use an oath to say 'this time I really *am* telling the truth.'"
I'm not sure that this was what he was saying at all, however. He seemed to be saying, rather, that it is presumptuous to call upon God, God's "throne" of heaven, or even God's "footstool" the earth to back up what we say. What we say should be what we say and should stand on its own. More than this is from "the evil one". This teaching applies to oaths to tell the truth, but applies just as much to any other oath.
It's interesting that Hoover only "affirmed" he would preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and that as far as I know he did in fact do so. Nixon, on the other hand, took a solemn oath to do the same, but he broke it.
- - Rich Accetta-Evans
Thanks for that insight, Rich. In my mind I had thought of it as more than just whether or not you tell the truth, but whether our actions follow our words, but I became a little too focused on truth-telling. Perhaps because I had the courts in mind and that is their prime concern.
While I agree that Jesus was saying it was presumptuous to swear by God or other things greater than ourselves, I do think it goes further because Jesus is saying "do not take oaths at all", which is also echoed in James 5:12 "And above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath. But let your “Yes” be yes and your “No” be no, so that you may not fall into judgment."
I also feel like I am slipping into legalism here and treating this more as an intellectual exercise than being led by the spirit.
Mark, I am a baptist conservative republican that is interested in this issue in light of recent events regarding the congressman who is Muslim, and wants to swear on the Koran. Would the Quaker tradition still hold this action as something to be protected, even though it is the Koran? From what I gather, the Quaker community would want him to be protected from public pressure to follow the norm in swearing on a book he doesn't believe in (or at least the translation he'd probably be using). Your thoughts?
Just so you know, I'm favorable to your interp of Matt. 5. The focus is on telling the truth, and Jesus seemed to teach that oath taking got in the way of the heart issue of believers being people of truth.
Hi Shayne, thanks for stopping by! This is an interesting question, and I can't really give an "official" Quaker answer on it, but I can give you the various ways I would look at it.
First, if it were abundantly clear that it is God's will that he swear on the Koran, then that is what he should do. God should take precedence over everything else. Amongst Quakers, it has been our experience that Christ's leadings in our hearts do not conflict with what we find in the bible, and Friends have been moved to reject the swearing of oaths altogether, so in the absence of a strong urging of the Spirit that this is in good gospel order, I would have a difficult time uniting with the idea that God wants him to do this.
I can envision two different perspectives about this among Quakers. One perspective is that since we don't approve os swearing oaths, we shouldn't support it in this case either. While I may be generalizing, I suspect that if this opinion is found, it will be found among conservative Quakers (that doesn't necessarily mean politically conservative, but is conservative of the old Quaker traditions - closer to early Quakers). On the other hand, Quakers have generally supported religious freedom, so in that sense, I can see why people would support this. To generalize again, I would expect this opinion to be more popular among liberal Friends, but that does not imply that any particular group would be in unity.
Now, putting aside the religious viewpoint and approaching this from an intellectual standpoint, neither the U.S. Constitution (which specifies the Oath of Office for the President), nor the U.S. Code (title 5, chapter 33, subchapter II, paragraph 3331) require the use of the Bible or any other kind of book for the Oath of Office. The U.S. Code also does not give the option for affirming instead of swearing as the Constitution does. From that standpoint then, the use of the Bible is more a tradition and not a requirement.
Since the use of the Bible is a tradition, I think I would have to look at why the Bible is used. My guess is that one places his hand on the Bible because he considers it holy and doing so adds impetus to keep the oath. If that is the case, then it seems more logical for someone to swear on the Koran if that is what he considers holy. Or to look at it from another standpoint, if someone does not respect the Bible, does it really add anything to have them place their hand on it when swearing an oath?
I have to say that once I started delving into the intellectual reasoning here, I have had this prickly feeling that I am going off in the wrong direction, that I should stick with where Christ has led Quakers and other Christians in the past, which is against the swearing of oaths.
Thanks for posing this question, Shayne, it has been much on my mind since last night!
With love,
Mark
Post a Comment
<< Home