Who is stacking the deck?

Genesis 25; Esther 1; Matthew 24; Acts 24

We are watching American news with interest and sometimes with dismay. The impeachment trial for their president has begun. I’ve not followed much of what has gone on before, but it seems to me that both sides are telling stories and giving testimonies that are suspicious. The use of words like “seems” and “may have” and “looks like” give me clues that many of the accusations are suppositions and the people make them have an agenda. If agendas are not out in the open then the ‘evidence’ begins to sound iffy.

Part of the problem is that this president has flaws that give those who do not like him an excuse to believe anything that may or may not support their assessment. Instead of balance that looks at both the good and negative activities, some people can only see one or the other.

Acts 24 tells of a situation in the life of the Apostle Paul that would have been hitting the TV news had there been television in those days. He had been accused by the Jews of things that were supposed and iffy rather than backed with solid evidence. He was arrested and brought before the Roman procurator named Felix. The case was introduced by a lawyer named Tertullus who did so with a great deal of flattery toward the ‘judge’.

And when he had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him (Paul), saying: “Since through you we enjoy much peace, and since by your foresight, most excellent Felix, reforms are being made for this nation, in every way and everywhere we accept this with all gratitude. But, to detain you no further, I beg you in your kindness to hear us briefly. For we have found this man a plague, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple, but we seized him. By examining him yourself you will be able to find out from him about everything of which we accuse him.” The Jews also joined in the charge, affirming that all these things were so. (Acts 24:2–9)

We know this was flattery because Felix had a far different reputation than this lawyer painted.

Then Paul was invited to defend himself.

Paul replied: “Knowing that for many years you have been a judge over this nation, I cheerfully make my defense. You can verify that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem, and they did not find me disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd, either in the temple or in the synagogues or in the city. Neither can they prove to you what they now bring up against me. But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man. Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings. While I was doing this, they found me purified in the temple, without any crowd or tumult. But some Jews from Asia— they ought to be here before you and to make an accusation, should they have anything against me. Or else let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the council, other than this one thing that I cried out while standing among them: ‘It is with respect to the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you this day.’” (Acts 24:10–21)

Rather than being a situation of “he said, she said,” all of Paul’s defense could be easily proven. The problem was not with the truth of those accusations but the motivations of his accusers. They rejected his message, the Gospel, and because he was turning people to Jesus Christ, they rejected Paul and wanted to get rid of him.

I know this is not an exact parallel to the situation in the USA nor can the defendant be compared with the Apostle Paul, but it brings out to me that no matter the rhetoric or any pointing to laws and precedents, or whatever tactics are being used, the motivations behind it are important. Anyone who stands against anyone else does it for a reason. Unless the reasons are transparently stated, those involved in seeking justice will be challenged to know the genuine nature of the case.

How is this practical for me? First, if I am ever falsely accused, tell the total truth about everything. Don’t use flattery to try and convince others of my point of view. Challenge others but also myself to give honest evidence to what I say. Take pains to keep a clear conscience before God. Own my own motivations and encourage others to do the same.

There is more, but I’m thinking if those involved in this American trial could do even this much, it would make far more interesting news and lead to true justice rather than all the confusing sabre rattling.