"Brothers, stop thinking like CHILDREN.  In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults!!!!!"  - Paul

 

Is it really that difficult to understand?  As people who claim to follow God, to walk according to His desires, is this concept really so tough?  "Stop thinking like CHILDREN!!!"  Stop waking up every day asking what it is we can get from life and start asking what it is we can give to whoever we happen to come across.  Too often we live each day wondering when our reward will present itself.  After all, I read my Bible this morning, asked God to "Bless" my day, and told my wife & kids I loved them before I headed to the office, and yesterday, while paying bills, I wrote a check to the "Home for battered, bewildered, and belittled people of San something" in order to help those in a far off land.  I've done my part, now where are the goods? 

 

Just as my children often ask me "Dad, can I have some ice cream now?  I ate all my dinner, vegetables too!!"  You see, they equate doing what's right with a reward, and while that's not at all a bad way to help children understand the importance of doing what's right, as adults we've got to heed Paul's words and "Stop thinking like CHILDREN!"  Our reward is not that which we receive, but that which God has given us to give to others.  It should not be recognition that motivates us to help or share with others.  We should be fulfilled knowing only that we are giving what we have.  Do you not find it discouraging to share with others who are not appreciative?  But why?  God did not command us to seek recompense from those we help.  He commanded us to help those we can, and to see nothing in return.  Our joy, our fulfillment, is in knowing that we have done what's right, not because others say so, but because God says so.  Seek security in him, not in your own image...

 

Paul continues to drive home this point when he says "In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults."  Obviously, he is telling us to seek the innocence of a child, to have no relationship with evil, but at the same time to use our maturity, both mentally and spiritually, to do what is right.  But what else is he saying?  "In regard to evil, be INFANTS!!"  Paul does not say be child-like, he says "be INFANTS" and here's why- does an infant cry at night to fulfill a selfish desire?  Does an infant reject the food offered it because he "just doesn't like it?"  Is there any action of an infant that carries any other purpose than survival and strengthening?  No.  Even a child of 3 or 4 yrs. will often smile at the opportune time or attempt to receive a reward by offering affection, but not an infant.  Every action of an infant has purpose, selfless aside from the need to survive, but never seeking more than they need.  After all, will an infant continue to feed after they are full?  

 

"In regard to evil, be INFANTS, but in your thinking be ADULTS!"  Logic, understanding, organization in thought and action.  This is our responsibility.  As we move through our daily life Paul tells us to do so with an infants knowledge of evil.  If we are upset and we allow our emotions to effect our decisions have we acted as infants?  If we carry with us the transgressions of others, allowing them to stand in our way, keeping us from doing what we know is right, have we acted as infants?  If we seek worldly gain, notoriety, recognition, and reward for whatever it is we do, are we acting as infants? 

 

As an adult we have a responsibility to have a greater concern for others than we do for ourselves.  I have always taught my boys that fighting is sometimes a necessity in this world, but that it should never be considered an option.  That is, the physical force they possess should be reserved at all costs, and should be used only as a means of self-defense, or more importantly, in defense of others.  In order to explain this to my young boys I often use the scenario of the school-yard bully.  I tell them that any time they see a weaker child being harmed by another they not only have my permission, but they have an OBLIGATION to defend that child.  If they see one child being picked on by many they MUST step in and help.  Still, I tell them that force is only okay if the other party forces it upon them, and then only to the point of being able to escape the situation.  Most importantly, I teach them that to stand by and watch, or to turn their backs and pretend as if nothing is happening makes them as guilty as if they were the attacker themselves. 

 

Why, then, do we as supposed God-fearing Christian adults, not share this same sentiment?  Are we not obligated to help those we see being attacked spiritually?  Do we not suffer a mandate by God to step in and join the fight of our brothers who are being overcome by worldly attacks?  Yet rather than viewing those around us as afflicted, we instead see them as competition, hindrances to our own ambitions. 

 

If we have the God-given ability to recognize in someone their spiritual battles that lead them to anger, greed, hypocrisy, and selfish desires, do we not also have the obligation stand with these fellow souls and fight with them?  Instead, we find ourselves using the weaknesses of others to our advantage, and in so doing we expose our own weaknesses, and increase them as they feed off each other.  If a member of our church falters (and when I say church, I'm not talking about the man-made powerless building we visit once a week, I'm talking about the body of Christ!!) do we rush in to stand with them, or do we rather make attempts to improve our own situation as a result of their downfall?  What about when that member is a leader among us?  When those in authority stumble do we rush to hold them up, or do we instead aid in tipping them over in order to further our own progression in "spiritual" leadership?  Likewise, when those not as strong as we are trip, are we rushing to their aid in order to keep them moving forward, and do we desire to move them ahead of us, or rather, do we rush to their aid with the hope that in so doing we will further ourselves, increasing our own self-worth? 

 

This is the evil Paul speaks of, that he so adamantly warns us against.  "In regard to evil be INFANTS, but in your thinking be ADULTS!!"  As adults we are here to serve God by serving others.  We are mandated to leave behind our worldly desire of recognition and authority, and rather to promote the authority of God!!  Purity of action, intent, and desire...this is the lesson Paul teaches us!! 

 

 

 

Here's a little sidebar to the Da Vinci discussion:

 

As you all may or may not know much of the "code debate" centers around Leonardo's painting of "The Last Supper" and his purported depiction of a woman sitting at the right hand of Jesus.  Painted around the late 1400's (I think) I don't believe it gained notoriety for some time after, worldwide that is. 

 

Now, just last week, while my parents were visiting my family here in Peru, I toured an 17th century monastery/convent in the center of Arequipa.  The convent continues to operate, though on a much smaller scale.  The original covers roughly 4-6 city blocks, quarters for a small community of nuns and priests, and some fantastic architecture and examples of monastic living. 

 

In addition, there is a modest collection of religious art housed on the grounds, primarily paintings.  One of these caught our eyes, and became a topic of debate and discussion for the rest of the day.  Amongst the paintings there was a 17th century rendition of the last supper, very different than Da Vinci's in that the disciples were seated around Jesus in a circular fashion, or so they appeard as the painting was of a traditional rectangular format.  The disciples were also dressed differently than in Da Vinci's painting, and the overall painting was very different, aside from the fact that it depicted the same event. 

 

One detail of the painting was very similar to that of Da Vinci's, however.  The person on the right side of Jesus had a pronounced feminine appearance.  Beside the fact that this figure was the only one in the painting without a beard, the face was much softer, with rosy cheeks. 

 

After we saw this we began to take notice of the other paintings, curious as to whether or not other Biblical figures were painted similarly, and it seemed that this was the lone figure of Biblical times portrayed without a beard, aside from those who were obviously women.  In other words, it would appear that someone else painted the Last Supper with a sexually ambiguous companion seated next to Christ...

 

Now, while I put no stock in the theory at hand, this does make me question the Catholic church, and whether or not they do or have ever given this theory any weight...