Final Word

We likely agree that if there is God, he has the first and last words relating to all things – in life and in death.  If we do not believe in God, we tend toward creating meaning from nature, and press it on the population.  Scripture informs us that we are incapable of making his evaluations/judgments, so we adapt to the context he offers, either human or divine.  Democratic society has decided on freedom of religion which includes not only the peaceful pursuit of faith by individuals, either alone or in concert with other individuals, or the right to avoid any religious faith.  Faith is commonly treated by secularists as cultic and superstitious – without substance for society.  This leads to tension, not of God’s making.  God permits either orientation, but is likely rather severe with those who use either orientation to escape responsibility.  The Christian evading responsibility as God believer will likely be treated more firmly by God than the live-and-let-live secularist who learns how to live effectively in a humanistic society.  Those who say they believe in God as something of a deistic generality so to avoid ridicule or to receive some personal benefit is also a hypocrite to his faith of unbelief.  We gain respect with man and God when we are the best we can be as persons, and take on responsibility for ourselves.  That sincerity is not efficacious for redemption to God, but it invites God to give greater attention to us.  Scripture contains a number of biographical notes asserting that God has left an individual to his or her devices.  The experience of Saul with the witch of Endor is one.

Yesterday (11/20/2014) to this writing two events occurred in which two men referred to Scripture to help account for their actions.  The first was the President of the United States who used Scripture as a reason for granting legality to millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States.  The second was from materials left by a man killed by police at a university from which he had graduated.  He was thirty years of age, felt intimidated by government, apparently had lost some mental balance – and referred to Scripture as one of the reasons to support his action in wounding three persons on the campus before losing his own life to security guards alerted to the developing event.  The President used Scripture as a source guiding compassion and acceptance of strangers in a country.  For persons of biblical faith the citing of Scripture gives pause for consideration of any claim.  Acceptance of the claim for me rests in the best interpretation of the biblical passage, in the relationship that interpretation has on the specific case, and the consistency of treatment in application by the authorities related to both immigration and the way government does business.  The general pattern I gain from the internet reporting at length the president’s speech in justifying his unilateral program for permitting legality for immigrants referred to the biblical references as a rational appeal for acceptance of his proposal.  The general implication is that the reference is not of the quality of natural evidence.  If the passages are as the president meant for them to be the appeal he made becomes quite persuasive for me, but not so for strict humanists.  The passages are buttressed by the larger teaching of Scripture that God is compassionate to the needs of any part of mankind. Context is vital here.

In the event of the troubled young man of thirty years of age, even though educated in a respected university, but broken by the inability to get himself settled in an imperfect human environment, to manage the problems of racial integration, and likely a loss of mental balance, the reference to Scripture is likely going to be manipulated to his purpose whether the purpose is right or wrong.  The reporters did not refer to Scripture recorded by the troubled man.  The problem is not in Scripture, but the accommodation of Scripture to the orientation of the persons, rather than the person finding legitimate orientation of Scripture.  (This was a common problem in the north and south before, during and after Civil War in the United States.  Scripture could not mean contradiction on the status of non-white persons.)  The procedure of private interpretation remains in our times.  This is currently a large matter in the church relative to the teaching on homosexuality with defenders interpreting through their interpretation acceptance of the context for those who choose it, and rejection for those who find passages supporting a different interpretation.  As noted above, Scripture argues that Scripture is not of private interpretation.  Scripture is its own interpreter, and the whole of it explains the direction in which we are to take it and be guided by it.  It really works.