It’s sad. They didn’t take their daughter to the doctor, let her die… because they thought it would be unfaithful to God.
The judge told the Neumanns this would give them time to “think about Kara and what God wants you to learn from this”.
He added that they were “very good people, raising their family, who made a bad decision, a reckless decision”.
He added: “God probably works through other people, some of them doctors.”
I’m really impressed with the words of the judge in this case. I’m certain that many people won’t like his decision, but for a judge that shouldn’t be made to mean much.
I respect how he chose to spoke to the family in words that they had a chance of understanding. I respect that he addressed the flaws in theology that caused the death of a little girl.
How do you fix a theological flaw? How do you fix a theological flaw as a secular judge?
You can’t.
But you can’t simply allot punishment according to actions – that’s why we have a person on the bench, and not simply a computer. If a computer were the judge, then once guilt/innocence was ascertained, the sentence would be automatic.
When I wrote about this before, I thought that whatever ruling was made on this would necessarily be a religious ruling. I still think so; I think that this is why the story is on BBC News, because this is a very challenging incident which highlights how the neat and tidy church and state divide is really messy and interwoven.
But I respect that the judge made a religious ruling and that he made a wise one. I think it was wise because he can’t punish the couple in a way that compares to the loss of their daughter.
The Neumanns will have to stand before a greater judge one day, but before they do, they’ll have to wrestle with the question of “Why?”.
Bad theology kills. It kills others through our sin against them, and it kills us. It brings deadness and pain and suffering into our own lives, because it’s bad, and it’s not the truth, but it’s in us, and because we ourselves can’t see it and we don’t know it’s what’s causing our grief, we can’t get rid of it.
Living in a world that is not the one which really exists brings its own pain. Believing in a God who isn’t the one who exists brings its own pain.
This is why there is the law; this is why there is justice and punishment. To show us where we are living in a false world, to show us where we have strayed from what is whole and sound. To lead us to something better.
This is why the court of a wise judge, a judge who reveals this… is a beautiful thing.
4 Responses to "God and civil law"
If you really want to see messy division between church and state, start looking into the (un)civil judgments being made in the U.S. around property issues with the Episcopalian Church!
BTW, just to be picky, I think you left out an “l” in “allot.” – The Picky Gramma-rian
to quote http://www.urbandictionary.com:
alot
1. Illiterate spelling of a lot.
2. Broken keyboard way of spelling a lot.
2. Ispilledalotofcoffeeonmyspacebar.
3. A word that actually exists; but since it isn’t found in dictionaries it drives people up the wall. A combination of “a” and “lot.”
Alot of words are considered ungrammatical before they are sanctioned.
3. The retarded way to spell “a lot.”
Alot is supposed to be two seperate words, you moron! Take a grammar class!
Fixed. Many thanks.
The only thing that bothers me about property issues is that Christians are hauling one another into civil courts; a property dispute doesn’t really require a judge to rule on the nature of God.
In the Niagra area there have been some very uncivil issues around the same things at a parish vs. diocese level. Buildings are owned by the diocese, but lived in by the parish.
Not a problem until you stop being on the same side.
Paul says, “Why not rather let yourself be wronged?” and we say, “I can think of a few good reasons.”
Which is sad, because it’s a rhetorical question.
I guess you had two many ‘l’s (that’s lowercase L) allotted to that word.
No. My error was the opposite. But may I just say,
“Never have so many come to the aid of so few.”