Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Leviticus 4:32-35

32 And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish.

33 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering.

34 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar:

35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the Lord: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

In addition to the option for a common Israelite to offer a young goat as a sin offering, he could also offer a lamb. The next chapter might suggest that two turtledoves or pigeons would also be an option for the very poor, though on the other hand it might be referring to a trespass offering instead.

In any case, we have now come to the end of this chapter on sin offerings. We have seen how the same pattern was to be applied to an individual, a community, a priest, and a leader. In all cases, the offeror placed his/their hand(s) upon the sacrifice, the animal was slaughtered, blood was placed on the horns, fat and kidneys were burned on the altar, and the body and dirty parts of the animal were burned outside of the camp. The only difference was whether the animal was a bullock, a goat, or a lamb.

It is interesting to note that the offering was one single animal, no matter how many people it applied to. Whether the entire congregation or a single, solitary soul, the offering was just one animal. This frustrates our common tendency to quantify sin and forgiveness in measurable terms. We have an innate desire to reduce offense to a number and be able to apply good works of equal number to “pay” for the offense. But that’s not how the patterns of the Spirit work. If it were, we would quickly become too “indebted in sin” to ever pay it off.

If there are any measurements and debts and payments, all of that is resolved in the atonement of Jesus Christ. All that remains for us, and for the ancient Israelites, is a ritualistic return to the right path. When we view these offerings as a symbol of commitment, not as a payment for sin, it makes sense why a single offering could stand in for any number of offerors.

SacrificeEligible oblationStepsExplanation
Sin offeringBullock, young goat, lambSacrifice for sin
The same pattern for an individual, community, priest, or leaderAn equal path to God for all
Hands placed on head, slaughteredAnimal takes the place of us
Blood placed on horns of the altarA heartfelt plea to the Lord for mercy
Fat and kidneys burned on altarCleansing our behavior and desire
Skin, dung, and flesh burned beyond the campThe sinful behavior purged out of us

Full table.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Commitment to the Ideal: A Richer Soil

A Difficult Requirement)

Yesterday I spoke of the trouble in having all of our relationships and commitments based purely on the attributes of the other person. If we only show love and devotion to those who love and are devoted to us, then we are not following Christ’s mandate to “bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

How do we offer such blessing, and good, and prayers, to those that are unpleasant to us. And how do we “give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver?” (2 Corinthians 9:7).

Love for the Ideal)

The answer that I have found is that we must have a love for the principle and ideal, one that is even more foundational to us than love for the individual. As I consider our society today, I see a great need for people who are not just devoted to their spouse, but to the very idea of marriage in-and-of-itself. We need people who are not just committed to taking care of their children, but who are committed to the role of fatherhood or motherhood itself. We need people who are not just supporters of their friends, but who are supporters of friendship itself.

If people loved marriage, loved parenthood, loved friendship, and loved neighborliness, then they could continue to act in those roles even when the other side of those relationships turned cold. If, instead, when companions turn from us, we abandon our relationship with them, we reveal that marriage, parenthood, friendship, and neighborliness never really meant anything to us at all. We just wanted to get, and if we couldn’t get, we wouldn’t be had.

Of course, I would advise anyone that they should marry someone that they genuinely love, and raise their kids to be people that they genuinely like, and build friendships with people that are genuinely good for them, and settle down in a neighborhood that is genuinely inviting. I believe it is right and wise to plant one’s relationships in promising ground, but sometimes the topsoil erodes, and roots must cling to something deeper if the relationship is to survive.

A Choice of Who to Be)

If one does not care whether the relationship survives after the initial excitement has worn off, then they hold a very shallow view of what it means to be a spouse, a parent, a friend, and a neighbor. They will never have a relationship of true depth and meaning. They will live petty and forgettable lives.

If, on the other hand, one remains committed to a marriage, a parent-child relationship, a friendship, and a community, through good times and bad, then that is a person whose bonds actually mean something. That is a person who is living a life of value.

At the end of the day, we are temporal, transient beings, and also the other people in our lives, so our commitment to them is naturally temporary and dynamic as well, ever shifting from moment to moment. We can, however, have a deep, abiding, and overriding commitment to an ideal. We can always believe in marriage, in fatherhood and motherhood, in friendship, and in neighborliness. We can be devoted to those ideals even when the relationship to the other person grows stale. We can continue giving of ourselves to those ideals with a passionate and cheerful heart, no matter how we feel about the person receiving on the other side. It is our commitment to the ideal that will see us through every drought and flood, every change of season, and every passing year.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Commitment to the Ideal: Transient Devotion

The Hardest Love)

One of the hardest instructions Jesus gave to his followers was that they were to love their enemies:

32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Luke 6:32-33, 35

I cannot imagine a time or culture where this mandate wouldn’t go against the grain. I believe it is inherent in our humanity to value those that are good to us, and to despise those that are not.

How, then, are we meant to overcome this basic nature and live another way? It would be one thing if Jesus had said to “put up” with our enemies, or to “resentfully tolerate” them, but he didn’t. He said to love them, and that suggests having cultivated a state of mind and heart that is totally unnatural.

I could easily do an entire series that explores multiple answers to this question. For now, though, I will just take two posts to examine one way in which people fail this mandate, and one solution to that failing. The failure is this: commitment to the person, and the solution is this: commitment to the ideal.

The Failure)

I hear many times in our culture when a person expresses his love, commitment, and devotion to another person, and he gives as his reasons a positive attribute that applies to that person today. Consider these examples:

“I always listen to my wife because she believes in me when no one else does.”
“I need to be a good neighbor because they’ve always been good to me.”
“I’ll always give everything to my children because they bring me such joy.”
“I’ll always be there for my friends because they’re always there for me.”

I think statements like these are popular because they are flattering to the person in question, but they also establish a culture in which devotion is conditional. Implicit in all of these is that the speaker’s undying affection is dependent upon the other person continuing to show up in a way that is positive.

What if the wife stops believing in him? And the neighbors become indifferent? And the children make disagreeable choices? And the friends let him down in a time of need?

These statements of devotion are very transient and weak. They essentially communicate that “I will be dedicated to you, so long as you remain as someone that I like.” Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, the behavior seems to follow the words. Even in our most sacred of mortal relationships, that of marriage, a man and a woman will separate themselves from one another for no other reason than, “we just don’t get along anymore.” Their commitment to one another was based on nothing more than personal delight, and once that delight is gone, so is their commitment.

In addition to being unhealthy for our society, this sort of transient devotion flies in the face of Jesus’s teaching. Our love, our commitment, our devotion was never meant to be dependent on the personal attributes of those we associate with. We were supposed to be able to love and be committed to the wellbeing of everyone, even our enemies.

Just how exactly can we foster this sort of unconditional love and devotion within us? I delve into my answer in my next post.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 24:3

3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.

Back in Chapter 19 the Israelites had been informed that God wanted to make a special covenant with them, wherein they would be required to follow His commandments and He in turn would make them His peculiar, chosen people. In response, “all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.”

This preliminary agreement having been reached, Moses then went up into the mountain, and throughout the previous three chapters we have heard the law that they Lord laid down for the people. Now we reach the other bookend to this event, where Moses delivers the law to the Israelites, and once again, “and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do.”

Thus, first the Israelites agreed to receive God’s law, then they agreed to obey it. And as we will see in the following chapters, Israel’s acceptance of the law here is preliminary to them receiving further instructions, wherein God will give the command for them to build a tabernacle which He will fill with His presence.

We clearly see in this that we come into alignment with the Lord by degrees. First we open ourselves just to hearing His word, then we commit ourselves to actually following it, then we receive the gift of His spirit in our home. He does not ask us to commit to things unknowingly, but instead invites us to hear exactly what we’re committing to, and then we decide whether to move forward or not. He does not invade us with His presence right off, He offers it and we must accept it. What we know of the Lord, and how deep our connection goes with Him, is limited only by our willingness to accept each new commitment He offers us.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Limit to God in Our Lives

What we know of the Lord, and how deep our connection goes with Him, is limited only by our willingness to accept each new commitment He offers us.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 19:20-25

20 And the Lord came down upon mount Sinai, on the top of the mount: and the Lord called Moses up to the atop of the mount; and Moses went up.

21 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go down, charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze, and many of them perish.

22 And let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them.

23 And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to mount Sinai: for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it.

24 And the Lord said unto him, Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the Lord, lest he break forth upon them.

25 So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them.

This is a very unusual set of verses. Moses had already ascended into the mountain, but the Lord told him to go back down and tell the people not to come up or they would perish. Moses replied that he had already told the people not to come up, as God had already communicated that requirement in the first place. God insisted, though, “Away, get thee down,” and so Moses went down to repeat the instructions to the people.

What was the point of this back-and-forth? Was God not aware that Moses has already given those instructions to the Israelites? Was there going to be a breach of protocol in spite of the original instructions, and God knew it, but Moses wasn’t expecting it? Was God simply making a point through repetition? Why weren’t Moses and God already on the same page on this matter?

Quite frankly, we aren’t given a clear explanation. In the record that we have, God never makes clear why this repeated instruction was deemed necessary. One thing that might be worth considering, though, is that the next time Moses was called up into the mountain we are not told that he went back down to remind the Israelites of their commitments, and that is the time that they actively defy the Lord and construct the golden calf.

So perhaps the Lord sent Moses down to interrupt them before they could go astray this time, but after they had received His law and more fully committed themselves, He would not stop them if they kept tending towards future infractions. Having made their bed, He would allow them to lie in it.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 19:7-9

7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him.

8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.

9 And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord.

The Lord had revealed to Moses His desire to make covenant and promise to the Israelites, but before doing so the Israelites needed to answer His offer. So Moses came down to the people, carrying with him the Lord’s words written down, and laid it before them to see what they would do with it.

Obviously, the Israelites had had their times of faithlessness and contention, but at this point they boldly declared their commitment. They were absolute in it as well, “all that the Lord hath spoken we will do.” Moses brought the words back to the Lord, and God revealed a very special plan. Not only would He give His covenant to the people, He would allow them to hear His voice directly in their own ears. Moses would still stand as a representative between the two, but the people would be able to listen in, receiving a personal testimony of the mind, will, and promise of the Lord.

Now, to be clear, the record is a little ambiguous as to whether they heard the entire set of laws that God spoke to Moses, or whether they only heard God calling out to Moses at the beginning and the rest of the transmission was related to them afterwards. In either case, the hearing of God’s word can be seen as something like a signature seal upon the law that He would give to them, assuring the people that it really came from Him and no other.

And this, of course, is something that has to be reenacted with each of us in our personal lives. We may have been told the good news by others, but God’s great desire is to speak His confirmation of it personally into our own ears. This example of the Israelites tells us the recipe that we can follow to have that same blessed result. After we have sought Him, and declared our commitment to do all that He has spoken, and purified ourselves, we can receive His word confirming His Law. Then we will know that the law is not just a law, but The Law, and that its author is God, not man.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Thought for the Day- Choosing to Surrender Choice

Overcoming our bad habits often requires removing the element of choice. We make a commitment to not do the bad habit anymore, and thus the choice is already made and doesn’t have to be made again.

But then, a little later, we make an exception and indulge in the habit. Or perhaps we decide that we will engage in the behavior to some degree, if not all the way. At this point we have created the option to do the behavior to some extent if the conditions are right. So now it becomes a matter of judgment again. The borders have been blurred, and from that point on, we must debate whether each successive situation warrants getting to indulge in the bad habit again or not. Thus, our bad habit has once again become a matter of choice. And this is why we give up on our commitments shortly after making them.

We should set our commitments, refuse to make exceptions, and remove the element of choice.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Do I Even Have an Addiction? -Part Two

Try Breaking the Shackles)

In my last post I said that if are unsure whether your negative behavior qualifies as an “addiction,” simply make a sincere commitment to stop doing it. I’ll further add that when you do, be sure to consider the usual excuses people give for giving up their resolutions and promise yourself that you won’t give in to any of those pitfalls. Promise yourself that you won’t ever say “well this next time will be the last time.” Commit to never say “I’ll make the change when I hit this next milestone in my life.” Assure yourself that you won’t be dissuaded by situations or friends. Acknowledge that the desire to do this behavior will rise again and resolve that you won’t give in to it even so.

And if you feel like you don’t agree with one of these commitments, then have an honest conversation with yourself about why not. Perhaps you want to stop overdrinking but not drinking altogether. Perhaps you want to commit to eating healthy when on your own but also want to leave the door open to getting a burger with friends. Perhaps you don’t want to keep viewing pornography after you’re married, but you figure in the meantime it isn’t hurting anyone.

If you find yourself making such concessions, then I would advise still making the commitment to cut the behavior out entirely, but you can make it temporary if you’d like. Say that you won’t do the behavior, not even for any of your usual exceptions, for three months. After that, after you’ve proven whether you can have your indulgence or leave it entirely at your own whim, then you’ll know whether you’re in control of the situation or not.

Many people attempt to do exactly this and are shocked to find that the future version of themselves goes entirely off rails from what they had previously decided. They come to realize that there are two persons living inside of them, one who is calm, in control, and rational, and another who throws all that out the window in a moment of impulse. We often make the mistake that addicts are always addicts. Sometimes that is the case, but more often I would say that addicts are only addicts some of the time. Because of this fact, the majority of addicts actually don’t know that they are ones until they try the sort of test that I described above. Nothing proves whether you are a prisoner than when you see if you can open the door to get out. It is sincerely trying to stop, and utterly failing to do so, that one becomes convinced that they really have an addiction.

Or, at least, this is the point where some become convinced that they have an addiction. Even after all this, some will try to write off their failure as a fluke, as a result of improper commitment or methodology. They remain convinced that they really are their own master, they just need to have the right approach in swearing off their troublesome behavior.

Very well, let them try again and again, by all manner of different methodologies. Let them read and employ every self-help book that promises to give them full control of self. Let them have as many failures as is required to finally surrender and say that they are a lost cause.

If at any point they do manage to break free, and permanently, then well enough. They have proven something to themself and they have managed to right their ship. But in my experience, it is very much the minority of people that will ever achieve this. Most often, by the time one even begins to wonder whether they have an addiction or not, the shackles are already thick and heavy.

Your Common humanity)

It might seem a shameful and discouraging thing to learn that you are a slave to your behavior. You might feel that that classifies you as the very worst of humanity, but nothing could be further from the truth. If you felt so sure that your vices were only minor indiscretions, and then discovered that they were addictions run amuck, you can be sure that there are untold billions for whom this pattern holds as well. In fact, you are in a more elevated minority simply by having come to accept the truth of yourself. Most people choose to remain completely self-deluded.

The fact is none of us get a free pass in this life. Either some tremendous hardship, or addiction, or both will take us all. We each will be broken by something that we cannot control. The fact that you don’t have the power over your own behaviors only means that you are human. Along with learning that you are no better than the rest of us, also be sure that you are no worse.

Or, perhaps, even after testing your resolve and finding it lacking you still feel anxious about the label of “addict.” Perhaps you acknowledge that you have a problem, that is it out of your control, but you still have some bias that prevents you from describing that problem as an addiction. Tomorrow we will begin examining the semantics of it, and the social influences that cause us to shun these labels.

Posted on by Abe Austin

A New Foundation: Part Two

Weighing Down)

Yesterday I shared about the broken and divided foundation that is exposed in a marriage when a secret addiction is brought to light. Every positive experience from the past was at least somewhat predicated upon a lie. Every good and decent thing that the addict ever did is tarnished.

And not only is the past thrown into disarray, but also the present and the future. I pointed out how even the most sincere and genuine acts of kindness from the now-truthful addict can be a trigger to his wife, reminding her of all the false and manipulative overtures he made in the past. Yes, today his actions might be blameless, but they are linked in her memory to the actions that were not.

Thus, the husband trying to repair the marriage with acts of goodness is like trying to fix a crumbling building by stacking new floors on top of it. Those new floors might be sound and whole, the very finest of design, but their added weight is only going to hasten the collapse and soon the whole thing will come down, good and bad parts alike.

The addict and his wife are stuck in a situation where anything they do to try and prop up the falling structure only sets off more problem areas. Finally, they might realize that they have to stop trying to save a fundamentally ruined structure. And, counter-intuitively, that might just be the thing they need to save their marriage.

Letting Go)

I have known many couples in recovery that just admitted that their marriage had failed, stepped back from the problem, and watched it collapse at their feet. And then they started talking about how to build a new one. They realized that they could start the relationship over from scratch. They could pour a new foundation there at ground zero.

The old marriage vows were now a sham, they had been broken to the point of losing all meaning. So rather than trying to revitalize them, why not renounce them for the empty promises that they were and make all-new commitments instead? The couple’s memories are marred by the Jekyll-and-Hyde performance of the addict weaved through them all. So why not accept that those memories’ former luster has been lost and start making new ones instead?

It can be such a relief to realize that you don’t have to solve this architectural problem at all. You don’t have to marry two opposite realities together. You can instead assign all that was flawed and broken to the past and all that is hopeful and good to the future.

Some of the couples I have known that made this discovery bought new rings, had a new vow ceremony, and started counting their anniversary from the day they recommitted themselves to one another. It might sound like a strange thing to do, it certainly goes out of the normal convention, but really why not? It is an irregularity that is more congruent with life as they were experiencing it. Perhaps they didn’t realize it at the time, but so much of their confusion was because they were trying to fit stereotypes of love and marriage that didn’t fit their situation. There’s nothing to say that you can’t and shouldn’t alter the signs and symbols of love and marriage to match the one that you actually have before you.

In Due Time

Before I close off this topic, I must point that none of the couples in our recovery group took this step on day one. It would have been hugely premature to say, “let go of the past and hold on to now,” when “now” was still totally enmeshed with the “past.” Most of us addicts were still learning how to even live soberly from day-to-day, and it wouldn’t do to make new marriage vows that wre then broken a second and a third time.

It is prudent to wait until you are actually ready to live the new life before you make a solemn symbol of it. Better to not start pouring the new foundation until you have learned the fundamentals of architecture. Better to not say it is for real this time until you really mean it. And not only that you mean it right now in this moment, but you know that you will still mean it tomorrow.

Put another way, it is good to commit to the better future, but neither of you can do that until you are first ready to totally let go of the past.