Lessons from a Eulogy

 Let me tell you about a godly man whose best friend---and the friend's father---had died simultaneously. This man had to speak about their deaths and say things about them he wanted others to remember for generations to come. It was easy for him to speak about his friend. He had been a spiritually-minded individual and, in addition to being brothers-in- law, they had shared a relationship in which they loved each other as much as they loved themselves. However, such was not the case with his friend's father---his own father-in-law. While possessing some admirable qualities, for many years he had treated the son-in-law who would now eulogize him maliciously (even plotting his murder). He had lived in rebellion against God and had even ended his life by suicide. Here was his chance to "unload" on this enemy of God and remind people of his evil life. What did he say? Turn to 2 Samuel 1:17-27 and read it for yourself.

The men involved in this story are familiar to all Bible students: Jonathan and Saul were the decedents and David the man who eulogized them. What the man after God's own heart said---and especially what he didn't say---about Saul is one of the most remarkable instances in his life and says as much about his character as any other event. Here was David's opportunity to castigate Saul and even pass judgment on his eternal destiny; an occasion to remind future generations of the great evils that had made him both God's enemy and his own; a chance to say "I admired so much about Saul but we disagreed about many things"; a time for showing how uncompromising he was with the error in Saul's life. But David did none of these things (read the text carefully). Was he wrong? Nothing in the context seems to indicate he was. Did David's omissions of Saul's many sins imply that he thought Saul had no faults or that he condoned the ones he knew he had? Absolutely not. Was he compromising truth by failing to point to Saul's ungodliness? Of course not. It went without saying that David didn't agree with or appreciate the many things in Saul's life that were evil and contrary to God's will. How fine it would be if some among us today would emulate David and be charitable toward those who do.

A preacher gets up to preach. In the audience is someone he has known long and well; someone who has meant much to him personally and spiritually. Prior to beginning his lesson he speaks words which recall these things and which express his personal appreciation. Both men know there are things about which they differ and will probably never agree upon. The speaker chooses to ignore such and, like David, focuses only on the positive. However, the preacher has made an egregious mistake. The man of whom he spoke most fondly is on an unofficial "list" of alleged "false teachers". The prevailing conviction (i.e. "politically correct" notion) with some is that such words about these men are inappropriate and that we are to either avoid speaking words of a positive nature about them or, if anything at all is said, we need to "tag" such statements with a "...however, I don't agree with him on certain issues" disclaimer. To fail to do so necessarily means we are "compromising with error". As a consequence of his remarks the preacher is publicly assailed as being "soft" and "compromising".

However, if David's example in 2 Samuel 1 teaches anything it is that we're not always obligated to "qualify" our personal remarks about another person. It goes without saying that no two preachers agree on everything all the time. Such is true even with husbands and wives. (Do those who insist on  a disclaimer qualify their words of love and appreciation for their wives? Should we say, when telling others how much we love them and how much they mean to us, that we feel this way "although we don't always agree on everything"? How loving.). Paul didn't always name the false teachers he had in mind (see 1 Tim. 1:3; Rom. 16:17-18) and thus I shouldn't feel compelled to always name them either. And I'm quite sure that there were those in Paul's lengthy lists of those he thought highly of (Rom. 16:1-16; Col. 4:7-17) that he didn't agree with on some matters but no mention is made of it.        

Brethren we've reached a sad and dangerous point whenever we start lambasting one another over personal remarks that are made publicly or privately about another brother in Christ. We have no right to sit in judgment and impose our personal convictions on each another and assume that because positive personal remarks are made about a fellow saint it must mean we are "in his camp" and have leant support to some position he takes that might be wrong. We need to learn that one is not necessarily spiritually weak because they don't agree with us. If you feel someone is a false teacher and that you can't in good conscience speak of them as others do that is your business and you must be allowed the freedom to act accordingly. But if others feel differently that is their business---none of yours---and they must be given the same freedom.

I fear that if some today had lived at the time when Saul and Jonathan died and read David's eulogy, a response would have been published. And, in spite of  David's injunction to "tell it not in Gath" about their deaths, that is precisely what some would have done in regard to David---announcing far and wide that he had been guilty of a positive approach to dealing with sin and sinners, was "soft" and a "compromiser" regarding the sins Saul committed because none were mentioned, and surely must be apostatizing. Brethren, the words we utter and the things we do in the midst of controversy will come back to haunt us, if not in this life, then surely in the day of judgment.

David Smitherman