Posted on by Abe Austin

Faulty Logic

There is a faulty logic that can lead some to abandon the faith that goes something like this:

1. My father believed in Christ.
2. My father hurt me.
3. The church believes in Christ.

Therefore, the church must want to hurt me.

This is not a surprising line of reasoning. It is in our nature to learn from our suffering and to try and avoid it repeating. We instinctively look at the qualities attached to those that hurt us and become suspect of others who carry the same. And in many cases, this can actually help us identify negative patterns and avoid risky associations.

But there is a difference between correlation and causation. Having been hurt by someone who professed Christ, but who did not emulate the teachings of Christ, is not the same as having been hurt by Christ, himself. It takes maturity to look at the harm we have received and ascribe its sources to the qualities that do apply, and not to the ones that don’t.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Bad Things Shouldn’t Happen

A Common Assumption)

Our culture struggles deeply with the idea of bad things happening to good people. It is often cited as an obstacle to having faith in God. To be honest, I have never struggled with this concept myself. I simply do not see why the existence of an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful God is mutually exclusive to suffering in our world. I see it as a non-sequitur, requiring several subconscious assumptions to try and bring those two ideas together.

But as I have thought about it, I wonder if the connection is simply this: Bad things shouldn’t happen to good people because that is unjust. I certainly agree with the second part of this sentence, which states that it is unjust for the good to suffer, but I become a lot less confident about the first part that says it shouldn’t happen. That depends on what one means by “should.” After all, why shouldn’t things be unjust in an unjust world? Isn’t that exactly the pattern that you should see given our mortal context?

The Different Shoulds)

I think the difficulty that so many in our society wrestle with might come down to there being two different meanings of the word “should,” and we, having lost an appreciation for the nuance between those meanings conflate them into one and draw erroneous conclusions. The first use of “should” is a moral statement. It describes the world as it ought to be, in a way that would be just and fair. Spouses should have the loyalty of one another. A defenseless woman should be able to walk down a dark alley without fear. The guilty should be held accountable for their crimes. The world should behave according to moral principles.

The other “should,” however, simply means “appropriate to the context.” It describes the expected effects of a certain condition. The visible constellations should be different from different latitudes if the Earth is round. A species in a favorable environment should thrive. A patient with malaria should have an exceedingly high temperature.

With that last one, are we saying that it is “good” for the patient to have a dangerously high fever? Of course, not. But it is the natural and fitting state for that condition. The suffering is tragic, but it follows the proper order of the thing.

So, should the innocent suffer in a moral sense? Of course, not. But should we expect to see such injustices in a world that isn’t moral? Yes. The sad truth is we live in a fallen world that has largely rejected God and elevated selfishness and sin over love and virtue. What should such a world look like? Should it be the image of justice and fairness, or is the logical order that it would be a place of tragedy, unjust suffering, and a reality far removed from the moral ideal?

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 12:6-8

6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

7 Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

Yesterday I started examining the purification rites surrounding childbirth and discussed why I don’t think they are so shameful as some assume. Certainly, a shameful interpretation can be read into these verses, but it is a personal choice to do so. It is also possible to see no shame in the event, only an acknowledgement of the inherent gravity and mortality in birth. I explained what such a perspective looks like for the purification period of a mother in yesterday’s study, and now we will do the same for the sin and burnt offerings described in today’s verses.

Whether the child was a son or a daughter, the offerings were both a sin offering and a burnt offering. As we have already seen, a sin offering was meant for the absolution of sin, and a burnt offering was about dedicating one’s life to God and His purposes. The burnt offering is not controversial, but many have taken the need for a sin offering at birth as meaning that a child is born sinful; conceived by a sinful act, issued forth in a sinful state. But I don’t believe that view is necessary. I believe this ritual could be pointing to the common curse of mortality, without reflecting on the individual moral guilt of the child.

It is certainly a fact that we live in a fallen world. We all experience tragedy, we all experience suffering, and we all experience death. Every one of us is doomed by this fate and need to be saved from it via resurrection. Separate from this, though, is our own individual guilt when we commit our own sins. Sins where we had a knowledge of good but choosing to do evil. Thus, we have a universal mortal demise, and we have a personal spiritual demise, each of which must be overcome in Christ.

I believe the sin offering for an Israelite child’s birth was to acknowledge that the mother had brought her child into this universal, mortal, deathly reality, and that grim fate could only be overcome by the sacrifice of a lamb. This sacrifice is symbolic of Christ’s promise that his death and resurrection will conquer the tomb for all of us. Whether that resurrection will also redeem us from personal sin depends on whether we seek his forgiveness and enter into his covenant, but redemption from death, at least, is guaranteed.

So, it is true that there is a deep gravity to the fallen state into which we are born, but I don’t hold that we are also born in sin. We are born into the consequences of Adam and Eve’s transgression, but not into the guilt of their transgression. We only become guilty when we personally disobey. And in both cases, mortal death and spiritual sin, the sacrifice of the lamb shall overcome.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 12:1-5

1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

This chapter speaks about childbirth, and how the mother would go through a purifying period before participating in regular tabernacle ceremonies. These passages have been used as evidence by some that the Mosaic Law treated women and childbirth as shameful, given the use of terms like “unclean” and the requirement of a “sin” offering. And this has not only been the argument of those antagonistic to Christianity. Even believers have used passages such as these to suggest that we are born in sin, shameful from our very beginning, and that sex acts are inherently vile.

While I can see where such interpretations are coming from, I feel that they are unnecessarily negative. It would be very helpful to know how ancient Israelites felt about these requirements, and whether they felt ashamed of them. We do not have that information, so we must be careful to not assume how they must have felt about these requirements.

On the matter of uncleanliness, I wish to point out that unclean is not one and the same as guilty or evil. There were many things that could make one unclean, including things that a person would have no willful agency over. A man having a nighttime emission was unclean for a time. A man stumbling over the corpse of a pig was unclean for a time. It is more accurate to think of uncleanliness as the spiritual equivalent to getting mud on our clothes. Getting muddy is nothing for us to be ashamed of. Sometimes it just happens, and we are not lesser people because of it. And yet, while we are muddy, we still keep distant from formal functions, public events, and clean places. We know we have to take a bath and wash ourselves before we go to these sorts of places because there is just too much earth on us.

Being unclean in the Old Testament seems to be the same, but in the realm of the spirit. The things that make one unclean are do not need to be shameful or guilty, they just happen to leave too much “earth” on us. They are things that mark us with the residue of the mortal world. Given that perspective, it is hard to think of anything so mortal as giving birth, and it makes sense that that would therefore make one ritually, but not morally, unclean.

Not only does birth involve the bringing forth of a mortal soul, but as verse 5 specifically calls out, it involves a considerable discharge of mortal blood. Many have noted that the purifying period is doubled when having an infant girl, and that this is likely due to the fact that this act of childbirth is inseparably connected to the female sex. The bringing forth of another woman means bringing forth another vessel of mortality. It is both issue and future issue all in one, so two purification cycles.

In tomorrow’s verses we will hear about the offerings that would accompany a new child’s birth, including a sin offering. In that post I will address why I think this offering is also not so shameful as some seem to think.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Subtle Devil

Satan’s greatest work is not obvious.
His finest temptations are subtle. They are devilish. They seem justifiable.
People are not merely seduced into what they know is wrong.
People are seduced by what they think is right.
In the last days, when Satan is at his most powerful, his ways will be popular.
His agenda will feel obvious and correct to the masses. Beyond reproach.
Humanity will destroy God, thinking that they do it for good.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Danger of Growth

Predetermined Expectations)

I grew up in an active Christian household. Every Sunday, I attended church with my family. There was never any consideration of not going, and through my childhood it never even dawned on me that that would even be an option.

Of course, at a certain point, I became a young adult and stopped living in my parents’ home. I started taking care of myself, making my own plans, my own decisions for the day. I remember it dawned on me that I didn’t have to go to church. I could just sleep in, or get chores down, or play. I could go once in a while, whenever I started to feel guilty about being away for too long. Or, I could keep going every Sunday, maintaining the same pattern I had been raised with.

I had a choice, and having realized such, my relationship with my faith could no longer be taken for granted. If I was going to remain a Churchgoer, it would not be by accident. It would be because I had actively chosen it for myself. And if I was going to be tepid in my faith, or backslide entirely, that would also not be by accident. It would be because I had actively chosen it.

I have heard that young adulthood is a point where many churches lose large swathes of their congregation, and given my own experiences at that time, I am not surprised. In our culture, his is the age in which we give full autonomy, and for many Christians, this the first time that they start considering other options. I have heard a lot of Church leaders asking how we can change this trend, how we can ensure we don’t lose people at this pivotal moment. Frankly, I think this falloff is inevitable. It is not a flaw in the system. It is simply a byproduct of choice.

Stronger Ties)

Having a choice means having the ability to choose the worse option, and there will always be some that choose it. If the ability to choose the worse option is removed, then there isn’t really any choice. And maybe that seems like a good thing. It prevents the bad outcomes. However, it also prevents the possibility for growth.

Growth requires a choice. Character development requires deciding to do what is right even when there are other tempting offers. Church attendance is just one example of this, but there are countless others. No one is truly courageous until he has chosen action over fearful retreat. No one is truly virtuous until he has turned down the opportunity to act out his lusts. No one is truly good until he has conquered the desire to be bad.

To have growth, you must have genuine choices, and genuine choices are dangerous things. It creates the possibility of failure but also creates the possibility of entering a new level of discipleship.

Some of those who recognize they can stop attending church choose to keep going anyway. Some decide to take a step away from church, but later on decided to come back. And for both of these groups of people, their status in the church is now more genuine, more real, more mature than ever before. Having made an actual choice, they are actually invested, they are there because they want to be, and they are giving up something else to make this a priority. They are attending church on purpose. They are successful, because they had the real possibility of failure.

There is no getting around this. Growth will always come with danger. The only way to remove danger is to deny growth, and that is an even worse outcome than failure.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Purpose for Faith

For what purpose do you have your faith?
Those that have found a sincere belief in God must ask themselves what He now expects them to do with it.
With every gift there comes an obligation.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Justification for Evil

If you believe that your opponent is evil,
And you believe that it is acceptable to play as dirty as your opponent,
Then you have justified yourself in being evil.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Us vs Them- Uncompromised Principles

Unsafe Discipleship)

In my last post I pointed out the inherent imbalance between those who engage in broad “us vs them” thinking, and those who treat everyone as individuals. Those who will persecute, abuse, and kill on the basis of identity alone will always be able to attack sooner than those who wait to see the true colors of another. The bigot can assume the offensive, while the just must begin on the defense.

It is the classic dilemma in Old Westerns. The unprincipled scoundrel has no problem shooting a man in the back, whereas the lawman requires evidence of lethal intent before returning in kind. Thus, the villain always gets to draw first, and the hero must catch up from behind.

This is but one example of a truth that we would all do well to remember. Virtuous and principled living is not safe. It is, and always has been, inherently dangerous. Perhaps we were raised in a special window of time where much of our society was virtuous, and so the imbalance of so living was not so clear. But this was the exception, and now we are seeing the rule restored. It is the pattern of history that those who act honestly and in congruence with their better nature are living with a handicap. This is not a flaw in the system, it is a simple reality, one that weeds out the fair-weather disciple from the one who holds true in all seasons.

I have noted the changing tides of society today, and the return of this hard truth. If we are going to be virtuous and principled and just, let us be so with a clear understanding of the dangers that are increasing day-by-day with that. Refusing to engage in the “us vs them” way of thinking is the right way to live, but also it is the dangerous way to live. we must accept both of those together, or not at all.

The Way of the Peacemaker)

Here at the end, I want to make one thing clear. I am not saying that the just man cannot use violence, that he cannot neutralize a threat once he is aware of it, that he cannot strike out against those who have already made their position clear.

It is not immoral to protect ourselves, even unto bloodshed (Alma 43:47), but it is immoral to be the first aggressor simply because we think someone might be violent towards us if given the chance. In dangerous times, this is what it means to be a peacemaker. It means that you do not ever initiate the violence, but that when the violence has begun, you overcome it quickly and efficiently.

I know that I am acknowledging dark ideas in this post. But presenting the real dangers and the real fears that will lead some to abandon their principles is not meant to cause discouragement or cynicism. It is meant to allow for true courage, which is only possible when we understand the real dangers before us, the real sacrifice that may come of maintaining our conscience, and with that full knowledge still do what is right anyway. The way of virtue is not an easy one, but may we all embrace that path.