Vindication and Blaming

My brother and I got into mischief as children. He was more responsible, being three years older. We were both misbehaving, and knowing that Dad was privy to secret knowledge, that I would get into trouble. Therefore, like Adam before me, I sought to blame. Adam blamed Eve, and I blamed my brother.

I went to Dad to vindicate myself. I said to him, "Carroll was playing with matches." That was the truth! Dad responded, "Tell Carroll to come see me." Dutifully, I marched out and returned with my older brother. 

Dad queried, "Carroll, were you playing with matches?" To which he responded, "Yes, and Larry was too." 

Dad continued as Perry Mason: "Is that true, Larry?"

I responded like a typical Democrat, "I'm not saying any more!"

This is not political, so please keep on reading.

"Blaming" is holding someone else accountable for you being the cause of some action or behavior. For Adam, it was eating of the forbidden fruit. He sought to take the focus off his own misbehavior by focusing on Eve. Not to be outdone, Eve blamed the serpent (see Gen 3). Eve was a participant in mischief. So was the serpent. However, their shared guiltiness with Adam did not vindicate Adam. Carroll's playing with matches did not vindicate me either! I could blame him all that I wanted but I was still guilty!

"Vindication" is "being freed from allegation or blame" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). God didn't buy into Adam's excuse, and Dad didn't buy into mine! Because Adam and Carroll were guilty did not free me from guiltiness. We were all partners in crime.

Adults play this game all the time. Not to dismiss true assault and intimidation, many of the actresses who accused someone of sexual harassment set themselves up. Feminists will get angry here, and so will some Christian women. However, there is a "law of sin". It's not a set of rules and regulations, but a lack of any. It's doing what is right in one's own eyes:

Deut 12:8 Ye shall not do after all the things (sins) that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.

Compare this to what the Hebrews were to do: 

Deut 12:1 These (rules) are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe to do in the land...

The statutes and judgments are God's will for His people, and are "the Law of God". Paul spoke of them both in the same sentence:

Rom 7:25 ...with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. 

The law of sin is easy to do: it is no more than neglecting the Law of God. Now for the application to my commentary.

There is always one main or "root cause" for any effect. For instance, the "root cause" of  car accidents is most often inattentiveness on the part of someone.  The car most often had little bearing on the injury to it's passenger, or the passengers in the other car if more than one is involved. Seldom does anyone blame the car unless it has been investigated and found to have a malfunction. That is most often not the case. If one blames the innocent car every time an accident happened, there would never be any remedial action. Driving schools to improve driving habits wouldn't exist.

In mass shootings, death and injuries are the effect. There is always a root-cause for the effect. Is the root-cause the gun? That will be silly to blame the gun for being a gun. There must be a reasonable and rational true root-cause. Obviously, there is something wrong with the shooters. However, that is not the root-cause. It lies deeper than that! 

It could be insanity. Courts determine that by psychological evaluation. On the other hand, it could be something as simple as hatred - summarily desiring to have one's way. Like it or not, hatred starts with neglect of God's Laws. Whether the reader sees them as divine or practical is beside the point. "Thou shalt not kill," is a great and necessary Law. Our civil law in the west comes from the Laws of God. Thus, as a civilized country - non-barbarous - killing at one time was monstrous!

The respect for life has been diminished with abortion and euthanasia. Perhaps we need to examine these mass murderers lack of respect for life. I would bet that it is dismissal of God's Laws as non-punitive. However, murder and respect for live is not the scope of this commentary. Neglect of the Law of God is!

Those accused of sexual harassment in politics and entertainment are not to be excused. However, there is a root-cause of their behavior. It all starts with neglect of the Law of God in favor of the law of sin. I turn to David's sin to further explain: David entered into temptation by looking from the roof, he lusted, and the consequences were adultery and murder. What was his temptation? Bathsheba bathing naked fully exposed to anyone who looked her way. Bathsheba wasn't stupid. She saw the palace there, knew David or anyone else would be able to see her, but bathed in plain view without regard to God's will.

Who do you think placed naked Bathsheba in full view? Was it God, or was it Satan? Since the result was sin, it was the law of sin which used Bathsheba to tempt  (Read 2 Sam 11). Nothing has changed  since those days. Not all but some sexual harassment was caused by the law of sin. To wit: the immodesty and provocativeness of some of the accusers. I'm sure they had no desire to be sexually harassed but their neglect of the Law of God certainly does not help!

1 Tim 2:9 ...that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

Paul advised Timothy of the will of God - the source of the Law of God. You've come a long way, baby! Paul was worried about braided hair, gold jewelry, pearls, and fancy clothes. God's way is simplicity and modesty in dress and undress. It goes without saying that bearing the "full Monty" is out of the question! Bathsheba bore it all, and so do many women who tantalize the men.

Using my own reasoning, none of the men can be excused because blaming the women can never vindicate them. The men and women both ignore the Law of God, and do whatever it is they desire to do. Why would women dress provocatively, or act in parts which are provocative? The answer to the former is to attract men. The answer to the latter is for the love of money! Both are of the law of sin. 

The root-cause of sexual harassment is Satan. He tempts men and women to "do what they wilt!" which is how Satanists say it. I don't fault only the women who accuse nor only the accused men. Neither are either vindicated - both are at fault. Newton's Third Law - actually God's Law - is that "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. " As such, for every interaction there are a pair of forces acting. This is called in theology "dualism". 

David wasn't acting alone when he stared at the forbidden fruit. The fruit was there tempting. The two forces were both Satan's will. There was a reaction for both David and Bathsheba. Bathsheba wanted to be admired, and David wanted to admire. Both got their wishes! Are all these things conscious thought? Not necessarily, although they can be. We become acclimated to sin, and our nature is to do the dance with which we are born. David said it well: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5).

We are born to sin! Since sin is our nature, hard work is required to overcome sin. To make the work harder, we are tempted. The "victim" and the "victimized" in the aforementioned cases may just be doing what they are mutated to do! The Designer's intent was that we be pure. Satan's will is that we be not! We are born impure. 

I like the phrase, "It takes two to tango." This is Newton's Third Law, and God's Law, in slang. In order to not dance the dance of Salome, don't go to the dance. Indeed, everyone needs to ask God, "deliver us from evil" (Luke 11:4).