Luminescence, Volume 3. C. K. Barrett

      “THE CRIMES OF THE CARELESS”—Exodus 22.6

      (Preached at Fentiman Road, undated, and Spring Head Mission 7/28/40)

      Exodus 22.6 “If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.”

      This text is taken from a section of the book of Exodus which commentaries call “The Lesser Law.” That is to distinguish it from the section in “the Law” which includes the Ten Commandments. This “Lesser Law” includes a brief code of laws of deep moral interest affecting the life of the nation. The application of the penalties described here would work something little short of a revolution in the life of today. Take, for example—

      THE LAW GIVEN IN OUR TEXT

      It is simple enough but by no means unimportant. Outwardly it meant more to the people who first received it than it can mean to us. They lived in a hot, dry country where the danger of fires was ever present. The law enjoined that if a farmer wanted to burn over his stubble field, or set fire to a heap of rubbish, it was part of his responsibility to see that the wind was in the right direction and that every precaution was taken to protect his neighbor’s property. If he neglected to take precautionary measures, and his neighbor’s crop was damaged, the man who kindled the fire was held liable and had to pay for the damage done. As I say, the particular application means little to us. Though I have heard my wife say strong things when a neighbor kindled a fire in the garden just after the washing was hung out! The point is that the underlying principle is sound and of manifold application.

      The question raised concerns our liability for the consequences of our action or our neglect. Here is a pretty problem in ethics for you. Is a man morally responsible, not only for what he does, but for what results from his action? Must he be held accountable for consequences he did not intend resulting from his conduct? In my judgment, there are consequences of our actions, or of our failure to act, at a given moment which are altogether unexpected; by no knowledge accessible to us could we foresee them. For these consequences, it seems to me, we are not guilty.

      But there are cases in which we might have known that certain results would follow our action or our neglect. In such cases, we are not guiltless though there was no ill intent in our minds. We might have known that evil would follow a certain course of conduct and we ought to have found out. The text presents the case of a man who did not intend to cause damage. The law held him guilty because he was careless of consequences and did not take necessary precautions. In this sermon, we will keep to such cases because they give us our subject.

      THE CRIMES OF THE CARELESS

      That is not too strong a phrase to use. Not least among the tragedies of life are those wrought by “want of thought,” rather than “want of heart.” We know the man who has a kind heart and means well, but who does untold injury because his morality does not include judgment of knowledge as well as sentiment. He relies on his good intention and does not trouble to consider consequences. We often let him off lightly because he is such a good fellow, means so well and apologizes so profusely when he has failed. But he needs the stern reminder that he is responsible for finding out the likely consequences of his actions. The utilitarian school of ethics has done us great service in calling attention to the fact that the results of actions are as liable to moral judgment as the motives are. That will become clearer as we apply the principle to some modern situations.

Let me put in here the illustration that made the sermon. Mr. Thomas Holmes, Police Court missionary, in his Pictures and Problems from London Police Courts, tells the story.6 The lady had no ill intent. Indeed, Mr. Holmes says, “doubtless it was kindly meant.” We should not do anything like that, but consider some of the ways in which we are guilty.

      Inclinations and obligations begin with a very simple thing, for it is in the simple things we oftenest fail. There is a letter to write, and engagement to keep, some work to be done. But we simply don’t feel inclined to fulfill our obligation. Suppose the engagement is to take our Sunday School class. Our neglect means the disorder of the school and maybe some scholar saying, “Well, teacher doesn’t care, why should I?” If that scholar is lost to the school, and lost to the kingdom, can the teacher elude responsibility?

      Take another small, but not unimportant, matter: careless chatter. Our tongues are small members but they can light hell’s fires. Yet how careless we are in utterances we have not verified. In some of our practical jokes we only mean to amuse ourselves but often we are playing with fire. The care of the gossips and slanderers is more serious. He means no harm, only likes to be thought of as “in the know,” but he soils the fair name of another. There may be no willful malignity, but there is moral inattention. He who kindles the fire, must bear the blame. But we must go further and deeper and discuss—

      LIGHTING FIRES WHICH CONSUME SOULS

      We talk about the folly of playing with fire, but who lights the fires? Into your shop or office comes an innocent youth or maiden. They blush at some of the things they hear, but get accustomed to them if their purity is stained and their souls scorched with evil, who is to blame? And what of those who by their criticism, or by their inconsistencies, destroy the faith of another or lead him away from his church allegiance? Take the following as an authentic case. It is taken not from a temperance speech, but from an article in a daily paper.

      A young man from over in one of the colonies was present at an English house party. He was asked to have a drink, he declined. But his host persisted and the young man yielded. That young colonial was just struggling back to sobriety and that one glass rekindled the old fire. Can you exonerate his host? Is it going too far to speak of the crimes of the careless? Is it a sufficient excuse to say that we meant no harm?

      THE BIBLE HOLDS THE INCENDIARY RESPONSIBLE

      We have to answer for our well-meaning but careless actions. In the old Law, the man who started the fire had to make reparation and pay for the damage done. You can do that when you are dealing with fields and corn stacks. You cannot when you are dealing with life and character. If a fire breaks out at my house, the insurance company can make good some of the damage, but some things can never be replaced. If a man’s reputation has been destroyed, if he has been robbed of his faith, if fires of passion have been started in his soul, what reparation can be made? What compensation is sufficient? I will not say there is no forgiveness. I believe there is forgiveness for every sin repented of. But you will find it hard to forgive yourself. “O God,” prayed a young man, “bury my influence with me.”

      AN INADMISSIBLE PLEA

      It is not enough to plead that it is our nature to be careless. Nature is but the raw material out of which character is shaped. It is useless to say that you can’t help being careless. You can and you must. To help you in your need the way of prayer is open. Go to the one you have wronged and make such reparations as are feasible. Go to God and seek His forgiveness. Claim the grace that pardons and purifies. If any man be in Christ he is a new creature. Instead of lighting the fires that destroy, you may, by the grace of God, kindle faith, hope, and love in the hearts of your fellows.