James Dixon stood accused of shooting police sergeant Richard Scanlon in the abdomen during a scuffle on Chicago’s south side. James Dixon was guilty, right? He did shoot sergeant Richard Scanlon, right?
Here’s are some facts: (1) A neighbor called the police to report a man with a gun. Scanlon arrived to find Dixon noisily arguing with his girlfriend’s father. (2) Dixon and the father began to physically fight. Scanlon stepped in to break it up. A shot rang out. Scanlon was hit. (3) A .22 caliber gun belonging to Dixon was found nearby. It was covered with Dixon’s fingerprints. One bullet had been fired from the gun. (4) The father, by all accounts, had been unarmed. (5) The policeman’s revolver remained holstered. (6) Powder-burns on Scanlon’s skin showed that he had been shot at close range. (7) Dixon had a previous rap-sheet. (8) Dixon pleaded guilty. Note: The officer did not die, He was awarded a medal for bravery for his efforts.
An open and shut case, right? Not exactly. Consider these additional details: (1) Some witnesses said that before Scanlon arrived Dixon’s gun had discharged once. The bullet went downward into the front porch. Moreover, there was a chip in the porch consistent with the testimony. (2) Dixon explained that he had hidden the gun because he didn’t want to be caught with it, not because he had shot the officer. (3) The powder-burns were concentrated in the inside – but not above – the left pocket of Scanlon’s shirt. (4) Dixon had spent three years prior in prison, but he had been wrongfully convicted. (5) The confession and guilty plea was part of a plea bargain agreement. If convicted Dixon could go away for twenty years in prison. If he pleaded guilty, the sentence would be one year, and he had already spent 362 days in jail, thus he was almost done – if he would plea bargain.
What was the truth? The truth eventually was brought forth by the press. Scanlon had an illegal pen gun. It had unintentionally gone off in the struggle. Scanlon had shot himself by accident. Dixon was exonerated and won a lawsuit against the police. Scanlon was stripped of his medal, pleaded guilty to official misconduct, and the veteran officer was fired.
The moral? Be careful before condemning. 1 Timothy 5:22 reads, “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partakers of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.”
Note: The Dixon-Scanlon story is told in The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel, pp. 9-ff. Also, Lee Strobel, “Four Years in Jail – and Innocent,” Chicago Tribune (August 22, 1976) and “Did Justice Close Her Eyes (August 21, 1977).
Bryan Hodge 
Very powerful example. I was introduced to it when The Case for Christ came out as a movie. Thanks for retelling it. However your quotation of 1 Tim. 5:22 is completely out of context. Although to “lay hands” on someone is used in Luke in conjunction with arresting and persecuting (20:19; 21:12; and 22:53), throughout the New Testament it is predominantly a very positive expression! It is associated with blessing (Mk. 10:16), healing (Mk. 5:23; 16:18; Ac. 28:8), bestowing the Holy Spirit (Ac. 8:18-19; 9:17), and ordination (2 Tim. 1:6). The last instance is the case in 1 Tim. 5:22. Paul instructs, “Don’t appoint someone an elder of the church too quickly.” Why? To help prevent situations where it is necessary to rebuke and discipline them (v. 20).
A much better passage to cite to support your point “Be careful before condemning” would be Prov. 25:7b-8.
Thanks for reading. I hope you benefitted from doing so.
You are certainly entitled to you opinion as to the meaning of the phrase is in 1 Timothy 5:22. There is certainly nothing unbiblical in your thoughts on the matter. We should be cautious in ordaining.
However, I stand by how I used the passage. The phrase is used in different ways in the Bible. (1) It is used of arrest, harm, or punishment e.g. Genesis 37:22; 2 Chronicles 23:15; Nehemiah 13:21; Esther 3:6; Matthew 25:50; Acts 4:3; 5:18; 12:1; 21:27. (2) It is used of imparting blessing e.g. Genesis 48:14; Matthew 19:15; Mark 10:16. (3) It is used in sacrifice e.g. Exodus 29:10,15,19; Leviticus 1:4; 4:15; 8:14,18,22: 16:21; Numbers 8:12; 2 Chronicles 29:23. (4) It is used in healings and working of miracles e.g. Mark 5:23; 6:5; 8:23-25; Luke 4:40; 13:13; Acts 5:12; 9:12,17; 14:3; 19:11; 28:8. (5) It is used of bestowing miraculous gifts e.g. Acts 8:17-19; 19:1-7; 2 Timothy 1:6. (6) It is used in ordaining or separating one to a work e.g. Numbers 27:23; Deuteronomy 34:9; Acts 6:6; 13:3; 1 Timothy 4:14. The context must determine the meaning. I believe that there are two reasonable interpretations of the passage. One is that he is saying be cautious in ordaining elders. Do not hastily ordain a man as an elder. The other is that this is saying be cautious in condemning another. Do not hastily rush to judgment. Do not believe an accusation made against someone, especially an elder (Some unjustly make accusations against those in positions of authority. They may have an agenda.) Commentators can be found on both sides. I believe that the latter better fits the context. Notice that this is about condemnation 1 Timothy 5:19-22,24-25. Ordination is not mentioned in the immediate context unless here, in the words. These are my thoughts.
Another passage which fits here is Proverbs 18:17.
God bless, Bryan
where is , what became of Dixon
Sorry, I do not know. I wish that I did.