THE RICH AND THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

Sometimes when I am reading Scripture, I come across things that would seem to contradict Calvinist teaching. So here is another question for my Calvinist friends that I am not sure how they might answer:

What does Jesus mean when he says, "Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven"? (Matthew 19:23)

And then "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God"? (Matthew 19:24)

If a person is either one of the elect ... or not ... then in what way is it "hard" for any individual to enter the kingdom of heaven? Why would wealth make it harder? Perhaps nearly impossible?

Of course, also problematic would be Jesus's interaction with the rich young man that precedes this dire observation about the rich and the kingdom of heaven. 

First, Jesus tells him, "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments" (19:17) in reply to his question, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" (19:16) Why doesn't Christ just say, "Listen, if you are one of the chosen, you will have eternal life"? 

Jesus lists several commandments the man should follow and notably does not quibble when the man replies that he has kept them all. Then Jesus tells him only one thing is lacking: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (19:21)

When the rich young man walks away "sad, because he had great wealth", how does one read this as anything but a free will choice that the man makes? He chooses his wealth and comfort over following Jesus.

Although I really am curious about how Calvinists read this passage, I don't want that focus to distract from the truly uncomfortable questions the story actually raises! Especially for those of us who are living in the rich West....

Would WE walk away if Jesus asked us to sell everything and give to the poor?

IS HE asking us to do this?

PRAY FOR HAITI

My day started with news of the assassination of Haiti's president, Jovenel Moise. Gunmen gained entrance to the president's house late last night and gunned him down. His wife suffered serious injury as well and is currently in a Florida hospital. 

"Man's inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn!" - Robert Burns

For Haiti, it is 11 million who mourn and face a truly uncertain future.

11 million souls!

The news left me feeling deeply discouraged. 

Haiti's daily existence is marked by severe poverty, hunger, unemployment, political instability, kidnappings, and gang violence. 

A tiny minority of individuals, fueled by greed for wealth and hunger for power, hold the entire nation hostage. 

How can their grip ever be broken?

BASIC CAMP

A little family update on our oldest:

Yesterday Caleb left for four weeks of basic camp in Fort Knox, Kentucky. This is part of his ROTC commitment before he starts his junior year at Wabash College. 

It's only a month that he will be in Kentucky, but it definitely has that "significant milestone" feel to it.

So Melissa fixed several of his favorite meals last week and on Sunday, Melissa, Caleb, Sarah and I spent the afternoon hiking together in Brown County State Park. 

After a couple of trips to the store yesterday morning to make sure he had everything on his supply list, Caleb drove himself south.

We look forward to having him back for a couple of weeks after the training and before the fall semester starts at Wabash. He will be studying political science now, rather than physics, but his plan is to go into law enforcement, starting out in the military with the goal of eventually becoming a U.S. marshal. 

His only hesitation regarding basic training was that it would remove him from his summer internship with the marshal service out of Indianapolis for several weeks. He has really enjoyed job shadowing there and it seems like a good fit for his personality and interests, so Melissa and I are happy for him. 

While we will be anxious to hear about his experiences with military training over these next few weeks, we have every confidence that - with God's help - Caleb can handle whatever comes his way. 

Sarah and Caleb on the Hike

FALSE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BIBLE PART 3

Since the Son of God himself was a "victim" of false accusations, it might seem anticlimactic to mention at least one more key instance of false accusation in Scripture.

Nevertheless, it is worth being reminded that the second biggest personality in the New Testament was also put on trial based on false witness: the Apostle Paul. (And more than once!) In fact, five entire chapters of the Book of Acts are devoted to the lies told against Paul, the resulting punishments, and his attempts to defend himself before the authorities. (Chapters 22 to 26)

The result was imprisonment and house arrest, presumably until his death. 

It is comforting to me to see that even though the false allegations disrupted the earthly ministry of both Jesus and Paul - and caused much suffering for each - the accusations were not able, of course, to thwart God's ultimate purposes. 

FALSE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BIBLE PART 2

The trial of Jesus himself has to be the most shocking direct reference Scripture makes to false allegations:

Luke 23:2 - "And they began to accuse him, saying, 'We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Messiah, a king.'"

This, of course, was the council of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law speaking to Pilate after Jesus's arrest. 

Consider the following about the false allegations that the Son of God himself endured:

1) Multiple people banded together to bring the charges. If you were in the crowd, you probably would have been thinking, "Surely not all these people could be mistaken or lying, right? Jesus MUST be in the wrong."

2) Part of the accusation was simply the accusers' own negative opinion of Jesus: "We have found this man subverting our nation." This is what they led with! In effect: "We don't like what he's been doing or the way he is doing it."

3) Part of the accusation was an outright lie: "He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar." We know from Scripture the opposite was true. But his accusers knew their audience - Pilate - would be very concerned with a Jew who was badmouthing Roman taxes. So they lied. 

4) Part of the accusation was true, but spun in the most negative light: "He claims to be Messiah, a king." Yes, there was talk of Jesus being a king, but not in a way that would be threatening to the Roman government directly. This was, in fact, the part of the accusation that Pilate immediately picked up on: "So Pilate asked Jesus, 'Are you the king of the Jews?'" (Luke 23:3) Of course the accusers had completely misrepresented the nature of Jesus's kingship, but, to be fair, they didn't really understand who Jesus was, nor did Pilate. 

5) They were out to destroy Jesus and laid the accusations on as thick as possible to make sure the presiding authority would act to condemn Jesus.

6) It worked. The authorities were confused and the public was worked up. As a result, Jesus was convicted and sent to the cross.

7) Every step of the way, the accusers were convinced of their own righteousness. As far as they were concerned, they were doing God a favor and righting some terrible wrongs.

If you think Jesus's suffering began with the physical abuse he endured - the whipping, punching, nailing to a cross - I would maintain that his suffering began with the emotional abuse of these false allegations and a sham trial. 

Can you imagine what it was like to see friends scatter, to feel helpless against a tide of negative opinion based on lies and misrepresentations, knowing in your gut that you already stood condemned by the authorities?

Believe me, it's a special kind of suffering. 

FALSE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BIBLE, Part 1

I made the point yesterday that it seems we are inclined towards disbelieving denials: when an allegation is leveled at someone, we are more likely to side instinctively with the accuser than the accused. 

I find it interesting how often this very issue comes up in the Bible - and the prominence of false accusations in Scripture should definitely give us pause when we are tempted to jump to conclusions of guilt.

Although one could argue that the first false accusation in Scripture comes out of the mouth of the serpent in the opening chapters of Genesis, I am wanting here to stick to major passages dealing SPECIFICALLY with the concept of false accusations. 

There are at least 3 big ones. Here is the first:

1) As a sin, making a false allegation ranks among God's Top Ten. The eighth commandment is this: "Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor". (Exodus 20:16) Consider the fact that this is found on the same list as murder, theft, adultery, and worshipping false idols. 

A prohibition against false accusations making it into the Ten Commandments should be enough to give us pause, but there's much more ...

A GLITCH IN THE TRUTH BIAS

Sociologists agree that humans tend to have a "truth bias" - a strong, inherent willingness to believe that others are telling us the truth. We are easily duped. 

Now I don't have any empirical data to back this up, but it seems to me that there is one occasion where we definitely tend towards an "untruth bias": Denials. 

For some reason, we seem inclined to treat most denials as lies. 

For a good recent example, recall the moment a few months ago when Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle made international news by telling Oprah Winfrey that the Royal Family was racist. 

Do you recall your own reaction when you heard Prince William a few days later tell the British press that the royals are "very much not a racist family"? The public seemed to collectively roll their eyes and mutter, "Sure you aren't." 

Somehow, when William said "We are very much not a racist family", in our minds the "not" got dropped. 

Maybe the issue is in fact a confirmation of the truth bias in a way: we hear Meghan Markle say that the royals have been racist towards her and we think, "Why would she lie about something like that? She has lived among the family for several years now, so wouldn't she be the one to know?"

In other words, we are inclined to believe her and then any denial following the allegation amounts to "She is lying" and we just aren't likely to believe someone lied to us. So instead we disbelieve the denial. (I know it doesn't sound entirely logical, but then humans are not logical, are we?)

For the record, I have no idea if the royal family is racist or not. (And neither do you.)

All I am saying is that, in general, we tend to believe an allegation as true and lean toward viewing a denial of that allegation as untrue. Have you ever noticed this?

This is a quite dangerous way to process allegations and denials but it is human nature and there is no remedy I suppose. 

If you ever find yourself in the position of having to deny an allegation made against you, you will instinctively know in your gut that whatever you say, no matter how you say it, will be more naturally questioned and doubted than the allegation itself. 

I speak from experience. It's a terrible glitch in the truth bias.