Marked

Today's passage:  Romans 16:1-18
     There was a movement in education several years back (seems like there is always some kind of movement) regarding grading student work.  Studies showed that negative red marks on student work lowered their self esteem. I'm not sure what the solution to this "dilemma" was, because I had pretty well tuned out after that, but I would not be surprised if the recommendation had been never to point out wrong answers on schoolwork.  I guess that explaining to the kindergartner that two plus two is indeed four and not five would shatter his self image too much, and well, we wouldn't want that.
     I just thought to myself, wouldn't it be more harmful to his self esteem if they were allowed to believe that their wrong answers were alright even into adulthood?  Isn't someone along the way going to make him feel ignorant for his well, ignorance and maybe in a much less kind way than a red mark on a paper?  I can understand that a student might be discouraged at seeing a failing test with red x's all over it, but am I doing that child a favor by not pointing it out so he can learn from his mistake and get it right in the future?  And what about his classmates?  When they see each other's work (which they always do somehow), aren't they going to point out to me or to him that he got two plus two equals five wrong too?
     This brings me to the passage today.  In verses 17-18, Paul writes:

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." 

Demetrius the Silversmith Stirs up a Riot
Taken from Treasures of the Bible
By Henry Davenport Northrop, D.D.
International Publishing Company, 1894

     When I saw that word "mark", I immediately thought of taking a big red marker and drawing an "x" across something. Must be the teacher in me.  This is a hard truth.  And what is harder is that Paul points out the exact method a person uses to do this.  A person who is trying to divide a congregation doesn't go about it like a cyclone, although he has that exact effect.  How?  "By good words and fair speeches".  That would probably mean this is somebody who is very well liked.  I have seen this happen in churches before.  The pastor usually has to call out these particular people because it is what the Bible commands. Half the congregation feels this is extreme, because after all,  Mr. Division was such a helpful person.  He would see a need and be the first person there to assist (all the while planting heresy in the listener's ear).  Or Ms. Offence was always so efficient (especially at explaining why the pastor was wrong about the resurrection).

      The pastor has to expose this kind of behavior.  Why?  The end of verse 18 explains why, so that these deceivers can not lead hearts away.  The Bible calls them "simple", which I think would mean naive or trusting.  And who would be the most trusting in our congregations?  New converts and children.  I don't care how kind or helpful or efficient somebody is, if they are filling my children's ears with wrong doctrine, I don't want them teaching my children.  I don't want them around my children at all.  I would be justified in that because Paul doesn't only say "mark them", but he also says, "avoid them".  When a Mr. Division or Ms. Offence is asked to leave, he and she will more than likely take some followers with them, which is exactly why they have to be asked to leave in the first place.  If that kind of behavior is allowed to continue in a church, the whole congregation could be destroyed. I have never seen a  pastor enjoy exposing this kind of thing, but he is commanded to do it.  People may leave, but losing a few (although it would be preferable not to lose any) has to be risked than losing the whole church to heresy.  Church members who only saw the smiling, jovial, everybody's friend, Mr. Division or Ms. Offence may have been too wise for these people to expose their true selves.  Or true motives.  And this is the hardest part because it would be easier to believe that they are just deceived as well and they just need to grow more in the Lord.  And that may be true, but when they are trying to win others over to their point of view, especially in an already established church with a clear doctrinal statement, Paul says they are only doing it for one reason.  They are trying to serve their own belly.  Serve their own belly?  I've heard of filling a person's belly?  But I would guess it means about the same.  Serving one's belly would mean to have a full one.  And how would he be full?  When he has enough money to fill it.  So I'm guessing these deceivers have only one thing in mind.  Money.  I would like to assign purer motives to people most of the time, as I've said before, I like to think the best about people, but Paul is clear that these people are not trustworthy, and their motives are impure.
     If a pastor were to avoid pointing out these people because he was afraid of crushing someone's self esteem, he would be just as guilty as the teacher who fails to grade a paper properly.  Someone along the way is going to catch on, and the damage then might be far worse.

Height of Hypocrisy

Today's passage:  II Samuel 14
     Absalom is a petulant child.  In reality, he is a young man (he has four children already), but he behaves like a petulant child.  "But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty:  from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him."  Obviously, Absalom is a good looking fellow, not surprising since he has King's David's DNA.  Can I say this?  Be very careful with your beautiful children.  All of our children are beautiful, but sometimes there are stand-outs.  You can tell this, because everywhere they go, they are admired.  People dote on them, talk to them, stare (in a good way) at them, admire them.
     My oldest son and I had a talk about this just the other day. My eight year old and my two year old are best buddies.  Firstborn takes very good care of him, but often spoils Youngest.  Now Youngest happens to be a very beautiful child.  Of course, I say that because I am his mother, but I get compliments everywhere I take him.  People naturally are taken with his blond curls and charming smile.  As nice as it is to have these compliments, Youngest is already learning that being cute can be very rewarding.  And since he is two, the tantrums when he does not get his way have increased.  I was correcting Youngest for this behavior the other day, when Firstborn asked me to be lenient.  "Oh Mom, he's just so cute!"  I explained to Firstborn, that is exactly why he needed correction.  Perhaps he is cute at two, but that behavior will not be cute at five or six.  Firstborn saw the logic in this, and let me proceed.
     I do not want to raise an Absalom.  I'm wondering if Absalom's mother, or perhaps nursemaids gave into his tempers and rewarded him with all that his heart desired--he was such a good-looking boy.  Youngest has already learned that he does not necessarily have to throw a tantrum to get his way, instead, he is learning that people give in when he flashes his sweetest smile and lowers his lashed eyelids.  Maybe that was Absalom's approach.  Parents, be careful you don't fall for that act too much either.  I can't say for sure that Absalom was spoiled as a child, but I'm guessing as handsome as he was, he was probably indulged.  A lot.  Selfish traits don't usually just spring up in adulthood, they have been carefully fostered throughout the years.
     In this passage, we see how Joab has finagled a way to get David to bring Absalom back into the fold.  But David still refuses to see his murdering son.  Joab is responsible for Absalom's return, but quickly sees that he will lose favor with the king if he gives in to any more of the prince's demands.  Absalom wants an audience with his father, and calls for Joab to mediate.  Joab refuses to come.  Absalom calls for Joab again.  Again, Joab does not comply.  So what does Absalom do?  He has his servants burn Joab's field. Are we talking about adult behavior here? I mean, that kind of thing probably worked in the palace nursery as a boy when the governess refused to give him his way, but really?  He's a grown man.  Joab seeks out Absalom (which is exactly what Absalom knew would happen) about this immature behavior.  Absalom simply responds with, "Behold, I sent unto thee, saying, Come hither,"  as if that is a good enough reason to destroy someone's property.  Absalom's action is grossly disproportionate to Joab's conduct.  But what is the most disturbing is that it works.  Joab does exactly what Absalom manipulated him to do.  If Joab had refused, Absalom would have upped the ante and probably burned his home as well, or killed Joab's servants.  The degree of selfishness in Absalom is equal to the weight of his newly shaven hair.

David Forgives Absalom--Taken from Treasures of the Bible (United Kingdom)
By Henry Davenport Northrop, D.D.
The International Publishing Company, 1894

     It is probably too late to corral Absalom's selfish ambitions.  He has been a selfish being for too long to be able to mend his ways now.  Of course, God can do that in him, but even then, it would take time.  David was always repentant when he had done wrong, but we don't see that in any of his sons.  I'm sure David taught the boys about the Lord, but unfortunately some of David's actions were so contrary to what he taught, that they saw the hypocrisy and walked away from God.  We all have some degree of hypocrisy in our lives, and our children will see it above all else.  We will never be perfect people, and we will never do everything exactly as we should.  But David's refusal to welcome Absalom back (despite his vengeful act of murder against Amnon) was the height of hypocrisy in Absalom's mind.  Why?  Hadn't David been a murderer?  Hadn't David had a man killed so that it would not be discovered he had been intimate with the man's wife?  In Absalom's mind, David's murder was so much worse.  Absalom reasoned that at least when he had his brother killed, it was retribution for dishonoring his sister.  Where was the nobility in what David had done?  David repented, and I'm sure Absalom refused to do this.  But perhaps the wise thing for David to have done, would be to have this conversation with Absalom and persuade him that his actions were unconscionable.  Maybe Absalom and David had these letters by messenger, but this was David's son--a face-to-face talk should have commenced.  Again, it is easy to sit in my office chair, play Monday-morning quarterback hundreds of years later, and advise David on what would have been a better way.  I'm sure if and when things go wrong in my life, others will do the same of me.  Still, God puts these things in His Word so we can benefit from David's triumphs and his mistakes.  God wants me to glean what I can on how to raise my children (or how not to) so that I don't have to go through the trials and tribulations that he endured.  It is too bad that David had to be the example, but I'm thinking that David had examples he could have watched.  Did he take advantage of that?  Did he have the privilege of talking to his father who had raised eight boys?  I don't know.  I just know that I do have that advantage, and I must grab hold onto any knowledge the Lord will give me.  I don't want to raise a petulant man/child.