We continue with the concept of human conduct and human worth, from God’s point of view and the varieties of perceptions advanced by human society either in theory or practice. Often theory and practice are out of synchronization with each other, but that hypocrisy is not strange to the human race. We often contend an affirmation and practice another. We even use hypocrisy (contradiction) in serious problem- solving so go to war to end warfare, or use lies to counter lies, or cheat to counter cheating against ourselves. God opposes warfare, but may utilize the insistence of society to meet problems through massive killing and suffering. He proposes to assist us through the bloodshed, and the following reconstruction. This assistance does not mean he favors the human process. We likely do not get the chasm of difference between acceptance and approval. We all accept some things in our lives without approving them. Our concern, with God, ought to be to find what he approves, and do our best to gain that in some form of policy. This concept may be the most quoted of all the items we find in the American Declaration of Independence. God means for mankind to be free. Now, how do we gain that freedom? Our forebears formed a Constitution so to give guidance in finding what we believe, and give credence to it because God believes it. It is interesting that the nation has largely lost the God allusion relative to human liberty. Even then our forefathers made a large segment of the population only fractionally human – so to justify (approve) slavery. Society continues to fumble with freedom, a gift of God and birthright.
God permits our hypocritical functioning – for a while. We may deal with the oddities in tragic warfare, in national depressions, in family dysfunction – and so the story goes. Christians need to be clear about, and convinced, that changes in society are often misunderstood. Christian values are applicable in any situation, but the attitudes of groupings of self-interest, governments seeking popularity, and education (supported by governments) move away from the corporation of values found in the Christian context. Moses wrote formulas that made divine faith and practical humanism into friends. Modern society seems to assume that religion is not a friend, but a factor, perhaps of interference. Friendship does not deny the meaning and context of either naturalism or supernaturalism. God wants both contexts to be mutually supportive so to create practical life for individuals and society. God deals with us as one and many. We could do the same if the higher context is created, not out of an inherited animosity, but in friendship meant for all who sense human brotherhood, and the good will of God for all. There were periods in history when this came close to reality, but something was lost when standards of righteousness were lost to the machinations of persons who during ensuing eras, became enamored of influence, power, celebrity, wealth (to the strongest members), machinations, and an arrogance that picks and chooses preferences over the patterns of peace, love and care for others, and a true belief that in God we trust. At this writing this last is a weak slogan – so overlooked. Slogans often sound good – for a while. Until life truths and methodology in God’s value system are adopted, the world’s nations and peoples will struggle, terrorize or fumble, and fall away to weakness and another ideology, decline and then a new birth of vision to go at it – again.
Christianity addresses the individual to faith and righteousness, to be followed at whatever price and value may be exacted by others in some kind of control over societies. It also addresses societies in the same faith and righteousness. God doesn’t get his context from many individuals or sub-societies, but his love keeps us from judgment and disaster – for now. We are evaluated on both factors – our beliefs and actions in our personal context and our application of those beliefs and actions in the social context – the one and the many. My first duty and privilege relates to God as my God, and then I turn to gain what may be gained for good and hope in making him to be accepted as personal God for individuals, perhaps for groupings of individuals. It is a major perception that there is tension between the one and the many. The last chapter of Judges seems bizarre to us, but in that ancient time, the Lord permitted a workable solution with the proper recognition of God’s ideals in forgiveness, and in gaining goals without violence. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020