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

The Threat of Good People- Justification for Evil

Yesterday I spoke about how children who are socially insecure can try to tear down those who are confident, because they hold up a mirror to the insecure children’s flaws. But as the years go by, what might be nothing more than teenage angst, gradually evolves into something deeper. Even, something evil.

Selfishness and Sin)

Most of us come into evil by simple selfishness. A neighbor is looking for help with some yardwork, and we discreetly make plans to be out of town that morning. Upon seeing a traffic lane slowing down, we might swerve into the next, cutting off the driver behind. We disparage the “other side” for their idiocy, enjoying the moral superiority that that brings. We want what they want, and we only deviate from our predetermined path when it serves our own interest.

And then, inevitably, that same selfishness leads to doing something objectively wrong. The commission of a mortal sin. Something truly damning, which far more than the teenage awkwardness discussed in yesterday’s post, is something that we tend to shrink from, to try and not face up to in our own heart.

And to soothe our conscience on the matter, we tell ourselves that everyone is “looking out for number one.” Everyone takes the advantage when it is presented to them. Everyone holds a grudge. Everyone is selfish. Everyone has a serious sin hidden inside. We become suspicious of those that appear to defy these universal assertions, assuming that the so-called good are really just hypocrites and liars, pretending to be holier-than-thou, but secretly just as selfish and compromised as the rest of us.

An Unbearable Reality)

Which then makes it very difficult when someone shows an undeniable act of kindness. When someone is doing good, even when they think no one else is looking. When someone is giving, with no possibility of return. When someone forgives another, even though they have every right to demand vengeance. When someone openly confesses and renounces their sins.

Moments like these threaten the wicked, because it holds up a mirror, showing us that we don’t have to be the way that we are. That person was willing to forgive his enemy, so why don’t I? That person gave with true charity, so why don’t I? That person admitted his sins and forsook them, so why don’t I? These questions remind the sinners that we do what we do because we choose to, not because it was inevitable. The sinners see what we really are, and how what we still cling to is inexcusable. We see that we are deserving of hell.

The good people therefore become hateful to us for no other reason than that they are sincerely good. They become an unbearable burden. They are a threat to the illusion that everyone is guilty, so we’re no worse than anyone else. They are a threat because they show us that change is necessary, but we are still unwilling to change.

Then, the good people have to be crushed so that there is no longer a standard to be measured against. Society redefines morality, so that even thinking or believing or speaking “incorrectly” is now deemed violence. Then the destruction of the good is considered justified and even called right.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Perfectionism vs Shamelessness

The world today tells us to be shameless. It insists that we are always good, and that any flaw does not condemn us, but that it is actually a worthy part of our own, unique, perfection. The world today thinks that it rejects yesterday’s perfectionism, but it is just as obsessed with being flawless. Not by purging our sins, but by denying their very existence.

Shamelessness is very seductive, but it only soothes those that are able to stay in denial. Once a person is woken up to the reality of their own guilt, and are seared in their hearts by it, they are beyond the power of false comforts. Once we have truly seen our own unworthiness, our own deserving of hell, it doesn’t help to just pretend it isn’t there.

The message of the gospel, however, is neither perfectionism nor shamelessness. It does not call us to live in our shame, but neither does it call on us to repress it. The message of the gospel is based around fully acknowledging that we are flawed, and that it is serious, and that it does damn us…but also that we are loved by God anyway and He offers His life to cover us. Only the gospel message allows us to both fully embrace our guilt and fully embrace God’s grace.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Elements of a Spiritual Journey

If your spiritual journey does not include a time of
Guilt
Shame
Failure
And being saved
Then you don’t have a spiritual journey

Posted on by Abe Austin

False Moral Dilemmas- Desire for the Gray

The Desire to Excuse)

At the end of the last post, I acknowledged the fact that each one of us will break conscience at some point or another, but that it isn’t as though we have to do that. We do it as a choice. We have an alternative path that remains morally upright, and we reject it, and choose something wrong instead.

In my personal experience, and in my daily observations, I think that this is one of the most difficult things for us to accept. Truly owning our failures does not come easy. We shrink at the notion of saying, “I hurt someone. I didn’t have to, but I chose to because I’m selfish, and there’s no justifying it. It was just wrong, plain and simple.” I think we all know that this is true of everyone else, so certainly it must be of ourselves also, but we keep trying to distance from it. Even when we do acknowledge our failings, we prefer to do it for past versions of the self. “The old me did that, the current me never would.” Thus, even harder than admitting that we did wrong is admitting that we are wrong.

And with this in mind, I think I think one of the reasons why we would be obsessed with so-called moral dilemmas is clear. We can deny all our guilt once we assume a paradigm that this world is fraught with no-win moral dilemmas. We tell ourselves that all of us must face choices where moral compromise is the only option, that sometimes doing wrong is better than doing the worse wrong, so there’s no helping that we have soiled our souls. If we convince ourselves that all the world is gray, then it is a meaningless homogeny where our own “gray” choices can’t be held against us.

The Courage to be Honest)

From this perspective, false moral dilemmas are not simply a misrepresentation, they are a coping mechanism for our shame. We rely on them because saying “there were no good options,” is much easier than saying, “there was one good option, but I didn’t have the courage to face its consequences.”

The solution, then, is having the honesty to admit that we are flawed individuals, guilty of choosing wrong, and needing grace to get by. We need to be able to acknowledge the perfect path that was available and how we far strayed from it. When we have courage enough for this, then we won’t need to cast the world in shades of gray, we will be able to admit the white that was there, the black that we are, and the grace that makes us pure again.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Ascend, Decline, or Plateau- The Beginning of the Fall

Common, but Deadly)

Yesterday I mentioned how sometimes I experience times of gradual moral deterioration. These are not the deeper descents into evil that I experienced previously, but they are gradual compromises on my quality of character. I acknowledged the fact that such struggles are common, one of the problems that everyone faces who tries to walk a godly path.

So, I don’t mean to over overemphasize these common foibles, but I don’t want to downplay them either. The fact is, that while these times of slow decline may not be gravely compromising on their own, they truly are the beginning of the path to losing one’s soul. Slowly testing one’s boundaries, pushing them further and further, is oriented towards eventually taking a step you never meant to, one that really does rack your conscience with guilt.

Times of slow decline must be recognized for what they are. They are the first teasing tastes of ruin. They are the opening chapter in every great tragedy. Yes, they are common and expected, but it is also essential to arrest before they come to full fruition.

Inverse of Progression)

In my personal experience, the pattern of moral decline often happens in the inverse of moral ascension. From what I have seen, moral ascension tends to begin with a dramatic moment of redemption, with periodic additional surges when correcting core beliefs, and then maintained with ongoing ritual. Moral decline, however, has typically looked more like ongoing periods of deterioration, followed by periodic concessions away from conscience, resulting in a dramatic moment of intense guilt.

Surely there are exceptions to this pattern, but it is the pattern I see most frequently both in myself and others. Having both perspectives is valuable for having a plan to improve, and also a warning system for know how to avoid regression.

Posted on by Abe Austin

True Forgiveness

True forgiveness isn’t about trying to minimize the wrongs of others, or to trying to justify their flagrant offenses away.

True forgiveness is knowing that what the other person did is objectively condemnable and that you would be absolutely within your rights to demand justice, but turning it all over to God anyway. It is letting God be the judge, letting Him choose justice or mercy according to His will.

True forgiveness is not excusing, it is releasing.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:13-15

13 If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn.

14 And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good.

15 But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.

These verses conclude the matter of a man’s goods being lost, stolen, or destroyed while loaned to another man. Verse 13 is still speaking specifically for an animal that is loaned and then destroyed. It states that if the animal is torn to pieces by a wild creature, producing the remnants of the body shows that the borrower of the animal has not stolen, sold, or butchered the animal. It has been utterly wasted, with no profit to the borrower, and so that man is guiltless. It is the same as if the unfortunate act had destroyed the beast while still under the original owner’s care.

That idea is further advanced in verses 14 and 15, where it is pointed out that if one man is borrowing the animal, but at the time of wounding or death the original owner is also present, then there is no restitution to be made. This makes sense, as the original owner’s interest over the creature and protective sense to it would still be in force, even while the other man was borrowing it, and so if the animal was compromised anyway it was either because the original owner was being neglectful or because there was nothing that could have been done to prevent the harm. If, for example, the borrower wanted to make a beast of burden carry a particularly heavy load, and the owner was there and allowed it, and then the animal collapsed, it would be the owner’s fault for allowing it to happen. But if the owner is not there, then it was solely the borrower’s poor judgment that is to blame, and so he must make restitution.

The nuance and breadth of provision in these laws is very impressive. They show a deep understanding of human life, and the many different manners and forms in which misfortune occurs, and a clear recognition of where blame rests for each instance. While there will always be unique, in-between situations, a simple examination of the two laws that stand on either side of that situation would give the judge the proper limits of justice. He could then exercise his personal judgment between those bounds, and the potential for malpractice would therefore be limited.

Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 22:1, 4

1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.

4 If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.

In the previous chapter we heard all the laws related to killing. These laws covered both the killing of people and of livestock, and both the intentional and the unintentional variances of each. Today’s verses now shift from killing to stealing, and there are some interesting moral lessons to be gleaned here.

The first that stands out to me is that the penalty for the deliberate theft of an animal is substantially greater than the penalty we already read for the accidental killing of an animal. It is a key moral principle that the penalty is not based only on what the outcome was (the loss of the animal), but what the underlying motivation behind that outcome were. The penalty is according to the man’s guilt more than the deprivation that was suffered.

Also, note how in the second verse it says that a thief found with the animal still alive is required to return the creature, and then one also of his own. We already heard the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and this is consistent with that. Since this man had sought to reduce his neighbor’s livestock by one, now he shall experience what it is to have one of his herd reduced by one instead.

And finally, note how the penalty is even worse if the thief has already sold the creature away, or killed it, before he is caught. Now, instead of returning the creature and being out one of his own, he must now give up four or five of his animals. I assume the significantly more severe punishment is because the thief stole with the intention to destroy. He didn’t just take from the rightful owner, he took it out to where it could not ever be given back to the owner. That is a darker sin than to have taken, but to have left the door open for remorse and restoration.

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Impasse of Release and Guilt: Part Two

A Proper Devastation)

Yesterday I considered how obsession with failure only tends to yield further failure. In order to change our lives and habits, we have to let go of our tendency to punish ourselves, we have to forgive ourselves for falling short, we have to get right back up and resume living our commitments.

Speaking for myself, just by understanding this fact I do find it easier to let go of my more minor indiscretions. If I eat too much at a party, if I stay up too late playing games, if I find myself distracted at work, I find it within my reach to set aside the self-resentment and instead say, “yes, that happened, but I should get right back to living my commitments, hopeful and trusting that I’ve still got this.”

But not every wrong fits into that “minor indiscretion” category. We addicts are defined by how consistently and repeatedly do heavy and major wrongs. We do things that not only hurt ourselves, but those we care about most. We break beautiful things and cause irreversible damage. And just letting go of that doesn’t feel so easy. In fact, it feels disrespectful and inappropriate to just let it go. It seems too flippant to say “yes, that happened, but moving on…”

And yes, focusing on the guilt and failure of our major wrongs is still the surest way to end up repeating those painful behaviors. Pragmatically we ought to just let them go, but in our hearts it feels like we should be distressed and devastated for a time.

This is a great conundrum then. It is the impassable gulf, the catch-22 of recovery. How are we to do make the surrender that help us get better when doing so feels actively wrong? This is the gordian know we will untangle tomorrow.