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 the friend's father-the man's 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 the godly man's 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 was 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 and David's enemy; 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 that 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 David compromising truth by failing to point to Saul's ungodliness? Of course not. It goes 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, like Saul, do things that are evil and contrary to God's will.
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 upon which they will probably never agree. The speaker chooses to ignore this fact 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 someone's 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 our 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 the example of David 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. This 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 Timothy1:3; Romans 16:17-18); 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 (Romans 16:1-16; Colossians 4:7-17) with whom he didn't agree 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 one another and assume that, because positive personal remarks are made about a fellow saint, it must mean the speaker is in his camp and has lent support to some possibly incorrect position he takes. We need to learn that people are 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--not yours--and they deserve to receive the same freedom.
I fear that if some today had lived at the time when Saul and Jonathan died and read David's eulogy, they would have published responses. And, in spite of David's injunction--"tell it not in Gath"--about their deaths, that is precisely what some would have done. Regarding David, they would have announced far and wide that he had been guilty of a positive approach to dealing with sin and sinners, was soft, and a compromiser regarding Saul's sins because none were mentioned; and surely, he 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.
I appreciate brother Smitherman sharing his thoughts on this subject. I agree with most of his conclusions, but I would like to add some thoughts for our readers to consider.
Words spoken at a funeral have no bearing on the deceased; funerals are for the living. For 20 or 30 minutes, the speaker has the attention of some folks who may be thinking about some very important things-death and eternity. This is not the time to mislead them.
A few years ago I was asked to speak at the funeral for one of my cousins who had been murdered-at a crack house where he was attempting to purchase cocaine. He was a drug addict who had fallen away from the church. Should I have omitted that fact from the service? I talked to my aunt, his mother, and told her what I felt compelled to do if I were to do his service. She completely agreed and wanted me to say something about some of my cousin's mistakes. I talked about his two sides-the one I will remember from the years during which we grew up together. Fun and happy memories from times we enjoyed together. But, he also had a dark side-the reason we were gathered to lay him to rest at such an early age. I mentioned the dangers and consequences (spiritual and eternal) of drugs. Why? In the audience were some of my cousins (including one of the deceased's own brothers) who were headed down the same road. Could I ignore the obvious and be honest about my love for men's souls-especially the souls of those in my own family? These are personal judgments each must make in keeping with each situation.
By the way, I received no negative comments about what I said, and there were many positive comments from the family and the funeral director. I know some of my brethren would judge me as being too harsh. Maybe so for them-but it was my decision and I have to live with myself. The street goes in both directions. Be careful about judging a brother as being too harsh because he takes a different route than you might have taken. Each must be true to his own conscience. At no time should we be ugly, hateful, or unkind. Compassion is a must, but we must also consider the souls we can touch by words given at such times! (KMG)