Am I a God at Hand, Saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?

  I have mixed religion with politics abundantly the past two weeks, finding answers to political issues in scripture and in gospel principles. I do not think that wrong. If the gospel is true, it applies to all parts of our lives. And, it applies to world problems as well as personal ones.
   I happened upon this scripture tonight. "Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? (Jeremiah 23:23)
   The verse strikes me. I can only wonder if it is saying that God is close and should be relied on for wisdom, and should not made to be far off and apart from the things going on down here on earth.
   But, I also see in this same chapter a warning that I should not suppose to speak on behalf of the Lord. Am I doing that when I suggest what the Lord might have meant in Jeremiah 23:23? A few verses later, in verse 31, it says, "Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues and say, He saith."
   Am I doing that? Am I using my tongue to say the Lord is saying something?
  I back up one verse, to verse 30, and read, "Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words everyone from his neighbor." From that, I wonder if He is saying that we sometimes take what others are saying as gospel. We take gossip for gospel. Forgive, but if, our neighbor tells us the First Amendment means we should go out and buy guns, and if the First Amendment is inspired of God, then should we not go out and buy guns? Or is this an example of us stealing from God in that we let the gossip of neighbors define what God is saying? In the words of Jeremiah, we steal God's words, supposing to find them in the things our neighbor tells us.
   Again, not having forgotten verse 31 so quickly, I realize that if it is I who interpret what God is saying, and set it forth as gospel, it is I who am using my tongue and saying it is what "He saith." So, I have a dilemma: I believe it right to apply the scriptures to my life and to our problems, but I do not want to suggest my interpretations are definitely correct, for that would be using my tongue to suggest they are God's words, and He says he is against our doing that.
   And, while it might be wrong to put words in God's mouth, implying that the First Amendment is His injunction that we should go out and buy guns, and while it might be wrong to let our neighbors steal words into God's mouth in this manner, are you any better off listening to my thoughts on what the scriptures might mean? I, too, am nothing but a "neighbor."  Listen to the logic I might offer, but know I am not blind to the fact I can be wrong, and will, at times.
   So, while I wonder -- that is what pondering the scriptures is all about  -- I do not know.
   I return to 23:23. "Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar of." Again -- giving room that I might be wrong -- I wonder but what we make God a God afar when we do not try to apply His word to our problems, and that includes world problems.
   Jeremiah 23 is largely about false prophets, and it warns against them. But, I wonder if verse 28 suggests that if we do, indeed, have an understanding of God's word, we should speak it, even though there are false prophecies, as well. They (the false prophecies) are like chaff, and the true words are like wheat.
   Says the verse: "The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat, saith the Lord."
   I am not a prophet, of course, but the second part of that ("he that hath my word") might possibly apply to me. (Forgive, if you suggest I am out of line for that. But, I think we all have a tendency to think we are right, and I am no different.  So, yes, I think it possible I might be understanding God's word, I might have his word, some of the time.) So, "he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully." That would then seem to give me an obligation to speak faithfully. I might even should feel I have an obligation to say what I say.
   All this comes in the name of pondering the scriptures, and to likening them to myself. Forgive me if you think I do wrong.

There is that 

which we could call 

the prison of the past.

   We make a mistake, and fail to correct it, and pretty soon we are captured by what we have done, and where we have been, and how we have fallen short. Our past becomes our present, and we let our failures define our future.
   We become prisoners of our past.
   We should learn: Making a mistake is not the bigger fault, failing to correct the mistake is.

Wisdom is not in finding fault in others; 

It is in perceiving and changing our own faults. 

He who would be wise 

realizes it is not others he needs to change, 

but his own self.

The Candidate Who borrowed a Church Theme to Solve Racism

   The reporter looked up from her notepad long enough to ask the candidate a question. "And, why are you running? What do you hope to accomplish if you are elected?"
   "Well, I want to solve racism, for one thing," the candidate responded.
   The reporter had dropped her eyes back to her notepad in preparation of writing what he was about to say. But, her eyes shot right back up when she heard that answer. "Excuse me?" she said.
   "Yes, I want to solve racism," the candidate repeated.
    The reporter paused, reflecting for a brief moment. "You know, I don't know if you can do that -- solve racism. That's a rather big assignment."
   The candidate smiled.
   "And, I don't know that I've ever heard a politician suggest there is a way to solve it," the reporter said. "They decry racism, they oppose it, but I don't know that I've ever heard any of them suggest they can solve it."
   The candidate smiled.
   "So, do you already have an answer," asked the reporter, "or are you just going to go out and find one?"
   Now, it was the candidate's turn to pause. "Well," he began, "you might be right about it not being something we can solve, and I think you are also right about it being something that isn't perceived to have an answer. People fight racism by marching and protesting against it, but no one seems to have an answer as to how to solve it."
    He paused again. He drew a deep breath.
   "I go to church," he offered. "Do you mind if I tell you I took the answer from something I learned at church?"
    The reporter just looked at him, not replying.
   "Yes," the candidate said. "In church, they teach the steps of repentance. Would you agree that racism is a sin -- a national sin -- and therefore is something worth repenting of?"
   The reporter just stared at him.
   "In order to repent, you need to recognize you've sinned," the candidate said. "If you ever are going to repent, you've got to sit back and recognize you're doing something wrong."
   He paused, then continued. "If we want to have a chance of ending racism, we have got to help as many people as possible realize they are sinners, so to speak. We've got to help them recognize they are racists, and we've got to instill in them a desire to change."
   "That's a tall order," the reporter said. "Do you really think you can convince racists to admit they are racists, and to change?"
   I think we can change some," replied the candidate, "but, no, I realize we can't change them all."
   The reporter pursed her lips. "How are you going to go about convincing people they are racists, and how are you going to convince them to change?"
  "You get them to thinking," the candidate said. "You get them to reflecting. You ask them, 'Of all the incidents we've had where police have been accused of violence, is there a chance that any of them really involved racism and unwarranted violence? I mean, I'm just thinking some people are racist. To suppose that there is a magic door that keeps any and all of them from becoming police officers might be a little much. Sooner or later, it's going to happen. All the events we've had might not be police violence. Some, maybe most, might not involve any racism and any undue violence, at all.' "
    The candidate paused, and then said very gently, "But, if a person says all of the incidents were justified and none of them involved racism or undue violence, that person . . ." He paused, again, and made his voice even lighter. "That person might be a racist. Can you see why I say that?"
  He wasn't done. The candidate had one more point to make. "We also need those who make false accusations of racism to realize they, too, need to adjust. So, you ask them, 'Of all the incidents we've had where police violence has been suggested, is there a chance some of them did not involve police violence? I mean, it just seems to me, theoretically, that a person potentially could make a false accusation of racism. And, if in theory it is going to happen, it would seem it would in real life happen. Wouldn't you agree there is at least a chance that somewhere in there, one or more of the incidents were nothing more than false accusations?' "
   The candidate's voice again became soft and gentle. " 'It just seems a little much to suggest that never happens.' " Another pause, and then the even-quieter voice. " 'I think you'd agree such false accusations can be very harmful.' "
   The candidate glanced at his watch, realizing he had to be somewhere. "If we are going to solve racism, we have also got to solve the false charges of racism."
   

 

We must See Racism to Solve Racism

   The first part of solving a problem is admitting you have one. If we don't think race is a problem, we will never solve it. If we don't think police sometimes have a bias, we will let them continue with that bias.
  But, this also: If we don't think we sometimes falsely accuse the police of bias, there will be no stopping the false accusations.
   For starters, I think each one of us should consider how we are biased. It is natural to like those who come from our groups. If we are from Idaho, we might identify with and speak fondly of Idahoans. Even so, if we are black people, we often identify with black people. Natural enough, right? And, it is the same with white people, right?
   Mitt Romney ran for president four years ago. His being a member of my church certainly was a factor in my deciding who I would vote for.
   Supporting our own is not wrong.
   But --here's the trick -- condemning and disliking those who are not our own is wrong. If they do nothing to warrant our dislike, then it is wrong for us to dislike them. That is when the word "discrimination" locks in.
   So, if we are to solve racism, the first steps include:
   (1.) Recognizing that we tend to pool with those who are like us. This does not need to be seen as a bad thing. Feeling an affinity for those like ourselves does not need to be a negative.
   (2.) Recognizing that it is wrong to dislike or condemn or find fault with those who are not in our group simply because they are not in our group.
   (3.) Recognizing that it is possible for some police to be biased and to hurt or kill those who are of different races. And, to recognize not only that it is possible, but that it does, in fact, happen.
   (4.) Recognizing that some accusations of racism are false, and that not only are they false, but  they are harmful and damaging.
   If we were to want to solve our race problem, we could begin by hammering out this message, by sharing the four above points with each other. If we could get all Americans to consider these points, and to see that they are true, we would be started on the road to success in solving our race problem. And, while it is clear we can't get all Americans to consider the points, the more people who signed on to recognizing these four things, the further we would be along the path of solving our racial divide.
   It is said that the first steps of repentance including recognizing the fault, and confessing it. It is no difference with a nation than it is with a person. So, if we are serious, as a nation, about solving our racial divide -- and we ought to be -- then we should push to get as many people as possible to recognize and confess to the problem.

Racism Remains one of Our Larger Problems

   Racism remains one of America's largest problems. I think of all that has happened since the Ferguson riots -- the police shootings and shootings of police, the public debate and rancor between black people and white people.
   We should reflect on what are the best things to be done. I doubt we can end racism, but we can come up with best courses of action. We can find wise things to do, and do them.
   And, we should not only address racism, but false charges of racism. These problems run together.

To Defend Bear Ears' Archaeolocial Sites, Define Where They are

   You can't defend what you don't define. If we don't know what the archaeological sites are and where they are in Bears Ears, how will we protect them? That's my thought as I hear Matt Anderson of the Sutherland Institute say the Obama Administration failed to identify archaeological sites.
   I don't know, maybe the charter (or whatever it is called) creating the monument does provide a way for protecting the archaeological sites. Maybe the management team is empowered to identify them and protect such places. That might be a simpler and less expensive answer than having a federal study.
  My brother notes finding many might be as easy as reading the BLM map. At any rate, I agree the sites should be identified. You can't defend what you don't identify.