A Sworn Christian

David W. T. Brattston

Because Christ forbids the swearing of oaths in Matthew 5:33-37 and 23:16-22, Mennonites and other Anabaptists refuse to do so but simply affirm the truth in legal transactions.

This interpretation of Matthew’s Gospel is not confined to Anabaptists. It has been shared by many Christians over the centuries, including by one religious gentleman who refused to take any oath, affirmation, or other declaration that he would tell the truth to the court. As I shall shortly report, he certainly exercised our abilities to work with the Bible and secular law.

There are two problems if a proposed witness refuses to swear or otherwise solemnly affirm or declare that they will tell the truth. The first is that the judge cannot consider anything the witness might say. In fact, a person who refuses to solemnly so commit would not be allowed to testify, which means that the side in the lawsuit that wants the testimony cannot present the prospective witness’s evidence. 

The second problem is that such a witness would be in contempt of court for the act of refusing. Contempt proceedings are unpleasant for both the judge and the witness, yet the judge is forced to act to give the parties a fair chance to present the testimony they wish.

Although there are some legal practitioners who prefer, to be doubly on the safe side, that the word God be used in oaths and affirmations before them, during the last 250 years courts and legislatures in the United States and British Commonwealth have softened the stricter rules. No longer need the words God, swear, or oath be used; and the presence of a Bible and raising a hand are optional for witnesses whose consciences do not allow them. 

The only requirement now is that in making a declaration to tell the truth, it must be impressed on the minds witnesses that they are indeed under a serious duty to tell the truth.

However, I once encountered a prospective witness who refused to comply with even these minimal requirements. He was presenting himself as a witness in his own behalf at a Canadian three-person panel, on which I served, for judging disputes between landlords and tenants. 

The incident began with the chairman saying, “Take the Bible in your right hand and swear that the evidence you give in this/ proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.”

“I can’t swear,” he replied, “it’s against my religion.”

“Fine, then you can make a solemn affirmation.”

“I can’t do that either.”

“Why not?” we asked.

“My Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, has commanded me not to take an oath and has told me to speak the truth at all times, whether under oath or not. I would be disobeying him if I made a statement at one time that I was going to tell the truth because it might be thought that I might not always tell the truth at other times.”

An impasse? Grounds for contempt? Would he be barred from testifying? Fortunately, I was familiar with both secular law and the relevant Scriptures. 

I asked, “Are you telling this tribunal that in obedience to your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, what you say to us will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”

“Yes.”

His conscience had been satisfied. The law had been satisfied. He had acknowledged to us that he was under a serious obligation to tell the truth in the proceeding. The Deity had even been called upon, which would satisfy even the most fastidious lawyer. We let him testify.

This conscientious Christian had in effect made a solemn affirmation in a different form than expected, which is legally equivalent to an oath. But we enabled him to do so according to his own religious beliefs. Today’s secular courts are uninterested in the exact form of a solemn commitment to tell the truth and strive to accommodate a witness’s religious scruples as much as possible.

I did not mention these fine legal points to the witness. It would be against my duty as a judge to argue with the man about the interpretation of Matthew 5:33-37 or Christian principles in general. I took the view that I was not there to run a missionary society and—even if I were—would not try to convert a man whose beliefs were vastly better than my own.

—David W. T. Brattston is a freelance writer in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, Canada, whose articles on early and contemporary Christianity have been published in Canada, England, Australia, South Africa, the Philippines, and the United States. At the time of the incident described in the above article, he was a lawyer member (“judge”) of Canada’s South Shore Residential Tenancies Board.