1 Samuel 15:17-21: in context

Samuel confronts King Saul, who was commanded to destroy the Amalekites and all they had, but who spared their king and the best of the plunder. Why did you not obey the LORD's voice, Samuel asks, but pounced on the plunder and did evil? Saul does not admit his disobedience. I have obeyed the LORD's voice, he insists; I went on the mission the LORD sent me. And then he shifts the blame and offers a pious excuse: the people took the plunder, the best of the devoted things, to sacrifice to the LORD your God. He disobeyed, yet claimed obedience, blamed others, and dressed his disobedience in religious language.

Saul's response is a study in the self-deception of partial obedience. He had obeyed in part, going on the mission, striking the Amalekites, and on the strength of that partial obedience he claimed to have obeyed fully: I have obeyed the LORD's voice. But he had not obeyed fully; he spared what God said to destroy, and his partial obedience was, in truth, disobedience. And rather than admit it, he defended himself: he blamed the people for the plunder, and he cloaked his disobedience in a pious motive, that it was kept to sacrifice to the LORD. He dressed up his disobedience as obedience, shifted the blame, and gave it a religious justification. This is a self-deception we are all capable of. We can obey God in part, and on the strength of our partial obedience convince ourselves that we have obeyed, overlooking the ways we have not. We can shift the blame for our disobedience onto others, onto circumstances, onto the people around us. And we can dress up our disobedience in respectable or even pious reasons, giving our failure to obey a justification that sounds good. Saul did all three, and Samuel's reply cuts through it: has the LORD as great delight in sacrifices as in obeying his voice? To obey is better than sacrifice. Partial obedience with a pious excuse is still disobedience, and no religious justification changes that. This searches the honesty of our own obedience. Do we obey in part and call it full obedience, overlooking where we have not obeyed? Do we shift the blame for our disobedience onto others or onto circumstances? Do we dress up our failure to obey in respectable or pious reasons that mask what it really is? Why do you call me Lord, Lord, Jesus asks, and do not do what I say? Obedience that is partial, excused, and blamed on others is not the obedience God desires. To obey is better than sacrifice; and the call is to honest, full obedience, rather than the partial obedience that Saul dressed up as obedience while blaming others and cloaking his disobedience in pious language. Let us not deceive ourselves as Saul did, but obey honestly and fully, owning where we fall short rather than excusing it.

Do I obey God in part and call it full obedience, overlooking where I have not obeyed, shifting the blame for my disobedience onto others or circumstances, or dressing up my failure to obey in respectable or pious reasons, and can Saul, who claimed obedience while sparing what God said to destroy, blamed the people, and cloaked his disobedience as a sacrifice to the LORD, warn me that to obey is better than sacrifice, so that I obey honestly and fully rather than deceiving myself with excused, partial obedience?