FOR YOUR C0NSIDERATION
"Safe in the arms of Jesus, Safe from
corroding care, safe from the world’s temptations, sin cannot harm me there."
(2nd verse of a great old hymn)
For this week’s editorial lesson I’m going to talk about a
subject that we see very little of today, to wit: "Personal responsibility." It
just seems to me that, no matter what bad situation people find themselves in -
it’s not their fault! And, with all that recently went on in our nation’s
capital, what better example of this could we have to illustrate my
topic?
All we heard reported by the news media, 24/7, was how bad
everything is right now and everyone blaming the other person/s or the other
"side" as being the responsible party for the mess we’re currently in. It
doesn’t matter who is doing the talking, it’s the other guy’s fault - not mine.
When it comes to politicians, if something has back-fired or isn’t working the
way it was supposed to, there’s always something or someone else to blame for
it.
And, it’s not just the politicians that don’t accept any
"personal responsibility" for messes, although I have to say that they occupy
the "chief seats in the synagogue" of blame-shifting. Another prime
example that I’ve observed many times during my career in law enforcement is
criminals and how they play the "blame-game."
When caught, the first thing they plead is "I didn’t do it.
You’ve got the wrong person." If that excuse doesn’t hold water or there’s too
much evidence against them, they resort to another phase of blame-shifting by
claiming they were crazy when they did it. Or, I was too doped up or drunk at
the time to know right from wrong so, therefore, I’m not responsible for my
actions. Of course, they don’t feel any responsibility for being in their
diminished capacity either.
Sticking with the criminals for a bit more, one of their
methods, assisted by their lawyers, of course, is to blame society (us) for
whatever it was they committed. The common tack that this method takes is to say
that they were raised by abusive parents or, that they lived in the poor section
of town, thus didn’t have the opportunities to be an honest citizen. They were
doomed by society to be a law-breaker. They had no choice, therefore "it’s not
my fault."
That type of defense shifts the responsibility for their actions
from the individual to the nebulous idea that an unfair world is responsible for
the actions of the defendant. What’s really happening when this defense ploy is
used is that the responsibility shifts from the criminal to the jury, to
society, with the hope that the jury will convict themselves instead of the
defendant and exonerate him. Remove any responsibility for his actions.
I have a short side-thought here about the "abuse" angle of
shifting responsibility from the individual. My thinking in this regard is, that
if parents spanking children during their younger years or depriving them of
things they wanted is a valid excuse, I would have been in a penal institution a
long time ago and so would have most of my generation.
All of what I’ve said to this point is simply to point out that
many people are looking for ways to take the responsibility for their own
actions away from them and place it on someone or something else. In the
examples that I used you’ll notice that no one is denying that the action or the
crime took place, they’re simply denying any "personal responsibility" for that
action.
You know what really bothers me about all of this? That many in
our society seem to go along with this idea of there being no "personal
responsibility" for actions. That there seems to be this idea that if I don’t
place any responsibility on other individuals, then they can’t expect me to be
responsible either. Could that be a reason we have something called "No-Fault
Insurance?"
By now you’re probably wondering how or if I’m going to tie this
into a scriptural lesson. I think that I can do so by looking at something found
in the 35th chapter of Numbers. Even though Moses didn’t get to go
into the "Promised Land," he was given the plans by God as to the way
things would be done once the Israelites got there. In this chapter we find the
law regarding the "cities of refuge" being received by Moses.
In studying this chapter and the laws relating to the setting up
of the "cities of refuge" I think that we can see a "type vs. anti-type"
lesson. The "type" of course is the "cities of refuge" and the anti-type
being something destined to come later. Here’s some information about those
"cities" that we need to understand in order to understand the antitype
lesson.
There were six (6) "cities of refuge" to be set up and
they were strategically placed throughout the land. They were there so that if a
person committed an act that resulted in the death of another person, he could
flee to the nearest one and would be safe from the "revenger of blood" AS
LONG AS HE STAYED IN THE "CITY OF REFUGE." Now, this did not relieve them
of having to face a trial for their actions. They would still be tried and if
convicted, be turned over to the "revenger of blood." IE: they still had
to face a "personal responsibility."
But, let’s say that they had the trial and the defendant was
found not guilty. What happened then was, that he was released from custody and
was safe from the "revenger of blood" AS LONG AS HE STAYED IN THE
"CITY OF REFUGE."
However, should the defendant choose to leave the "city of
refuge" and the "revenger" caught and killed him, no fault was
applied to the "revenger." Verse 28 tells why: "Because he should have
remained in his city of refuge..." His death at the hands of the
"revenger" was his "personal responsibility." It wasn’t the cities’
(society’s) fault for not stopping him from leaving. Can’t you just hear some
smart lawyer back then try to make the city responsible by saying that they
should have posted someone at the gate to stop him.
Or, maybe plead to the jury that his client was too inebriated
to realize that he had staggered out the gate. "Someone" should have been
designated to keep him from exiting the city so therefore, it’s not his fault.
God said that it was and I’ll go with God’s judgment in this matter. There was
absolutely no other person he could shift the blame to for his being slain. As
we say in today’s vernacular, "he owns it."
Now for the anti-type. Do we as Christians have a "city of
refuge?" A place where we are safe from the world? Remember I said the
anti-type was something "destined to come later?" Well, it did. Our "city of
refuge" came in the human form of Jesus Christ, but was in reality, the Son
of God. HE is our "city of refuge."
Think about it a minute. Whose responsibility is it to make it
to the "city of refuge?" OURS! Picture our "city" in the words of
the hymn I cited at the onset of today’s lesson:
"Safe In The Arms of Jesus." That’s where we’re safe.
Where "sin cannot harm us." Where the "revenger" (Satan) can’t get
to us AS LONG AS WE STAY IN THE "CITY."
Whose responsibility is it to "remain in the city?" OURS!
Just like the lesson seen in the type; if we leave and perish eternally because
of that leaving, whose responsibility is it? Again, OURS! We have no one or no
thing to blame it on if we "choose" to leave our "city of refuge." To put
it on a personal level - it’s my "personal responsibility" to get into the
"city" and it’s my "personal responsibility" to "remain" there.
The same applies to you.
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Covey
No comments:
Post a Comment