R/A - The Radical Agenda

Last night I was reading John Piper's Legacy of Sovereign Joy and ran across this thought from Augustine, (not a direct quote, btw - I'm doing this from memory): Most people are not only failing to delight themselves in God, they even fail to delight themselves in their own sins. They not only are passionless about God, they are passionless about everything. Augustine seemed to teach that the life of the elect should be dominated by a consuming passion for God Himself, and this makes sense to me. This thought occurred to me while reading: Though there are many prayers I could pray that God may or may not answer affirmatively, yet this prayer I know He will delight to answer affirmatively:

"Make me satisfied with you alone, Oh Lord".
----
I hate doing my jam writing on the computer. The keyboard is loud - clacky, even - and the physical feedback of typing is not nearly as sensual and satisfying as the feedback from writing. I'm probably one of those people who will actually get excited about natural handwriting-recognition technology if it ever gets good enough to read my writing. I love the feel of ink pen on paper.
----
This morning I was reading in Leviticus about the various rules for offerings and sacrifices and I came across this idea: If you were a leader in the community of the people and you committed a sin, either a priest or an elder, then you were required to bring a male animal for sacrifice. If you were a "common person", which I take to mean someone who does not hold either of the previously mentioned positions of leadership, then you were required to bring a female animal as a sin offering. Seems to me that the difference has to do with fruitfulness - a female can give birth to comparatively far fewer offspring than a male can sire. The requirement to offer a male animal may speak to "epidemic" effect of sin in the leadership. Just as a male can impregnate an almost unlimited number of females with his sperm, so a leader can "impregnate" an almost unlimited number of those "under him" with the effects if his sin.

I wonder if this is evidence of the reality of representation in a covenantal relationship. We moderns don't have a clue about such things, and in fact take great offence at the thought of (a) being held culpable in the "sins" of another and (b) causing our own guilt to be imputed to those under our authority. It strikes at the root of our independence and self-sufficiency.

I'd love to get some feedback on this thought.