But as has almost become standard operating procedure, a woman suddenly appeared not long before the vote was scheduled and made allegations that Judge Kavanaugh had tried to sexually assault her some 37 years earlier. And of course this tactic has been seen before and the name Clarence Thomas is all most need to hear.
But when Kavanaugh’s accuser did get her chance to tell her story it became quickly obvious, except to Democrats, that her claim did not seem to have much real evidence or proof. She could not recall crucial details and nobody really could confirm what she said. Plus, the judge had been exposed to some 6 previous FBI checks in the past and nothing at all surfaced that would indicate this kind of behavior on his part. If his accuser did suffer what she claimed, that is indeed terrible. But it seemed quite clear that the potential high court judge was the one who was guilty in whatever did occur. Legal experts said that, based on such skimpy evidence, that most courts would not even agree to hear this case in the first place with the evidence offered up.
But as we all now know, Kavanaugh was eventually confirmed by a vote of 50 to 48. But what we also know is that the vote came down almost exclusively along party lines. How shocking! This would have been the case anyway most likely just based on what each party had at stake.. But what was so troubling this time was that those on the left wanted the nominee to step down because they 'assumed' he was guilty of the flimsy charge against him from three plus decades earlier.
That is not how the American system of justice has been through history. It is based on the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. The key word there being proven! So this new concept, as seen with the Kavanaugh situation, was downright scary to say the least. Can anyone’s life now be destroyed by a simple unproven allegation? I have jury duty coming in about a month. And if I am put on a case, my philosophy will be 'innocent until proven guilty' - beyond the shadow of a doubt. And that is what I would expect from my peers if I were on trial.
But recently I was reminded of something quite profound when thinking about this whole national ordeal that we all just experienced. While innocent until proven guilty should always be the norm in our justice system, it came to me that in the spiritual realm it is the exact opposite. In order to experience forgiveness and salvation, we must first admit our sin and full guilt before God. He requires that before He can extend His saving grace that is found through faith is His son’s sacrifice for us all on the cross. And when anyone cries out for God’s mercy in that manner, then He can render that man or woman as fully justified and seen as innocent in Christ. In other words, we admit to being fully guilty and only then we can be rendered no longer guilty.
Without question, it goes against our human grain to admit that we are sinners and have come short of God’ glory (Romans 3:23). That is why so many just can’t seem to come to God on His stated terms. But when we do, and when we accept that we are guilty and helpless to save ourselves, then we can be made righteous through faith in Christ. That is the required order of things in God’s perfect justice system. And that Biblical process is never up for debate, vote or discussion. That is what it is and there is no other way to be made fully just and right before a holy God..
"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved ." Acts 4:12
Bill Breckenridge
No comments:
Post a Comment