I decided that today was the day I would break my vow of silence in Sunday School, and attempt to make sense of the teacher’s lesson. Today marked the first Sunday in a while that I have attended Gospel Doctrine, as I have been in the teacher preparation class, and have missed church due to work. That all being said, today’s lesson was supposed to be on unrighteous leaders and how they affect those around them. That’s what the teacher said her class was to be on. Instead, it was about a king who made bad choices that isolated groups of people from his rule. It was a history lesson, mostly, but I decided to draw a comparison between the lesson and our time.
Rehoboam was the son of Solomon. When approached by a certain group of people who felt oppressed under Solomon’s rule, and asked if he would lighten their oppression, he sought the advise of two groups: the guys who had counseled his father, and a new group of advisers who had grown up with him. His father’s advisers told him to serve the people, treat them kindly, and that they would, in return, serve him unendingly. His group of friends told him to be more oppressive and exert his authority over them even more strongly than Solomon did. Rehoboam listened to his friends and made it worse for the poeple. Thus, after receiving such treatment, the people packed up and separated themselves from the remaining tribes.
The comparison I drew from this is that Rehoboam was most likely raised in a king’s court. He most likely knew little of hardship, and did not fully understand the struggles of the people. He most likely had heard his father denounce the people, and had given audience to Solomon’s prejudices and biased opinions. The people, feeling slighted, did not want to stand for it any more and left. Taking Rehoboam’s possible upbringing and comparing it to the church sent quiet discomfort around the room. I told everybody that this same spectacle existed in the church today. That we have members and leaders who come from areas saturated with member and their ideals, saturated with the church so much that every part of their life is permeated with gospel and church lore. Then, those members move to areas, or they are called on missions to areas that are less saturated with church lore. They experience, usually for the first time, the reality that the remainder of the world experiences. They see the openness of sexuality. They see the drinking, the smoking, the swearing, and the difference of dress. They are appalled, and in their disgust they openly denounce the congregation, call everyone to repentance, become overbearing, and create a cycle of unrighteous dominion. They call upon their family, friends, and even other ecclesiastic leaders from back home and are given counsel in ignorance. They are told how horrible the circumstances are, they are told that things need to change, they are reinforced in their opinion of community decadence, and solidified in their idea of the necessity of cleansing. They, like Rehoboam, feel the desire to exert their authority, the need to be the beacon of light to these poor souls and appear as powerful, righteous, and spiritual. However, they usually only appear as overbearing, dominating, and rude. It is no wonder, I said, that people leave these congregations and do not desire further fellowship with the church. What was once a happy and eager congregation with liberal ideals and open understanding and tolerance, is now forced into closed-minded views too full of reservations and false doctrine. Those too simple to see the difference accept it blindly. Some of those who recognize it, shake their heads, accept it as failures of new leadership and continue onward. Others sensitive to the misunderstanding and intolerant of the ridiculousness of the changes leave. A select few, whose testimonies rely on the gospel and not on leaders or the church itself, express their dismay, continually question the closed-mindedness of the leadership and general membership, and try and effect change. Usually they are branded as usurpers, deviants, and at most treated with pity for their misguided lack of closeness with the spirit.
So I shared this with the class, reiterating that certain topics in society such as homosexuality, methods of dress, drinking coffee, tea, or smoking are more accepted and common than in other areas, and that we, as a church, are supposed to be Christlike in all our actions and decisions. There is very little that is Christlike in Rehoboam’s treatment of the Israelites, nor is there a lot of Christlike attitude and behavior in the above mentioned members and leadership. The class was silent. Only a couple were even looking at me. The teacher paused, looked at the class, then continued by stating that it was true that Rehoboam was an unrighteous king. She continued with her history lesson; completely disregarding my point. Instead of being upset, I inwardly laughed.
Too often our attempts to help others understand what is happening around us end in failure. I have tried this many times, but have usually been met with the same responses (or no response at tall). Is it that people don’t want to look at the entirety of the situation and understand what is really happening, or are they too scared that what they now accept as the “one true way” is in fact merely a device created by man to maintain the status quo? I think of the latest topics I have read in blogs and the conversations I have recently had with coworkers and family and really wonder why such blindness exists. I know I have been victim to it along my pathway towards enlightenment, and am still fighting with certain ideas that are eroding the barrier walls I erected to keep out those ideas. But I want to understand, and I am learning. Why can’t other people seem to care about the same thing? Why are they so prone to be as the leaders and members who treat people like Rehoboam did?
