It's always helpful if you can find someone who loves you and will tell you the truth. Receiving the truth from someone who loves you, especially when it's not pleasant truth, can be very beneficial. Well, I have such people in my life. So I asked one of them about my blog.
I was wondering about the recent exchange regarding the exclusivity of truth and, more importantly, how I come across. You see, there are several components in what I write that may not be properly perceived. On the one hand, I try to write in such a way as to say, "This is my view; I may be wrong." On the other hand, it would be foolish to say I believe something if I didn't think it was true. So I'm trying to strike an extremely delicate balance here. There are things of which I've become convinced. I've examined the arguments, looked at the Scriptures, sometimes even held the opposing views, and become persuaded that these things are true. I believe them fully and, from my current perspective, can't see how that would change. There are other things about which I have ... opinions. These things are less certain. I have opinions, for instance, about eschatology -- the doctrines and theology concerning last, or final, matters, as death, the Judgment, the future state, etc. -- but I'm not fully convinced, so I'm not going to be asserting them as surely. But regarding the things of which I'm convinced, I cannot afford not to assert them because I believe them to be true and I believe them to be of great importance.
So, here is my dilemma. I have been accused of being unwilling to take criticism or have my views examined. I've been thought of as arrogant. I've been viewed as unkind to those who disagree. Now, in my view I've been none of those things. But we all know that the heart is deceitful, so I've asked others who love me to evaluate what I've written and tell me how I come across. What I was told was that I come across as right. That is, I seem to hold the position that I'm right and if you disagree you're wrong.
I'll accept that. Anyone who holds a viewpoint believes that they are right or they wouldn't hold that viewpoint. It would be insane to hold a viewpoint that you believe to be wrong. And, as I've argued before, since truth excludes that which is false, if I believe I have the truth on a particular point, it would necessarily exclude that which disagrees. But ... do I come across as unwilling to examine, unwilling to accept criticism, unkind, arrogant?
You see, I'm back to that "2 + 2 = 5" example. Here I am, sitting (hypothetically) with a child, discussing his math homework. He assures me that 2 + 2 = 5. How I respond will likely shape the interaction and our future interactions. Here are a few options. I could say, "Whatever you think is okay. You bear the consequences." I could say, "No, you're wrong. 2 + 2 = 4. Here, hold up two fingers on one hand and two fingers on the other hand and count them. What do you get?" I could say, "What kind of idiot thinks that 2 + 2 = 5?" There's a spectrum of responses. The first one leaves the poor kid on his own when I had the ability to help. And later, when he finds that I knew the truth and didn't tell him, he'll likely not want to interact with me much anymore. It's not loving. The last alternative corrects the student, but in such a way that communication is shut down, feelings are hurt, and animosity is constructed. He may get the question right on his next test, but he certainly won't come to me anymore for questions. It's not loving. The only option I can see is to defend the truth without wavering but without insulting.
And we end up at my dilemma. How do I do that? I try to put lots of things in my writings that suggest that "These are the things I believe" while certainly allowing (nay, knowing beyond any doubt because of my past history) that I may be wrong. I use phrases like "I believe" and "I suspect". I certainly try not to belittle the people who disagree with me. And I suspect (see?) that some of the problems people have with what I write is due to past clashes with others who are more willing to belittle those with whom they disagree. So how do I accomplish what I am trying to accomplish? How do I defend the truth without wavering but without insulting? How do I come across as if I am convinced of what I believe (because I am) without coming across as arrogant? Narrow-minded? Well, yes, I'm narrow-minded. Again, it's the nature of truth. If you believe something to be true, that becomes a narrow road, excluding everything else that is not true on that point. But I am indeed willing to (and, in fact, constantly in the process of) examine my views, the Scriptures, and evident reason to see if they correspond. How do I get that all across?
If any of you have insights that would help me, I'd appreciate it. I asked my reliable friend, "How can I do that?" and they answered, "It can't be done." Maybe they're right. But if any of you have suggestions or hints as to how to do that or observations as to how I'm missing the mark, I would greatly appreciate it. I am, after all, human. I'm right a lot of the time, but I am human.
4 comments:
That's the nature of the game, isn't it? You could be the nicest, kindest, more gentle person in the world, but if you believe there is only one truth, then you are an egotistical jerk.
Stand firm on your foundation: Christ. Your blog edifies many, because it glorifies Christ by preaching The Truth! :)
Stan: Seems to me your trouble is that you hold to the concept that truth is objective and you express yourself from that context. But you live in a culture that increasingly accepts without examination the idea that truth is subjective.
What you're supposed to communicate is, "This is what I believe, but if you believe something different [even completely contradictory to what I believe] that's okay and you're right, too."
Now, if you can pull that off convincingly, that'd be mighty entertaining.
Ken
Thanks, Samantha.
Ken, you're right. I can't pull that off convincingly. Fortunately, I wouldn't even try. I'm not aiming at being nonsensical.
I received an email comment that I thought I'd put here for others to see as well because I think it was insightful.
"What you're seeking in your blog today is a good thing ... insight about speaking the truth in love. That is right to do. However, what you want you can't have ... folks understanding what you say and not taking offense because they don't agree. Jesus said the servant is not greater than the Master. If they reacted to Him and what He said, they will do the same to those who say the same truth. Your mission is to always check your motives (unworthy ones sneak up on us) and then say what God wants you to say in as helpful a way as you can."
That's helpful, too. So I will say up front that the purpose of the question is to try to eliminate obstacles that my approach puts in the way. The truth itself is obstacle enough for some people, and no one likes being told they're wrong. I will never be able to control people's responses, nor would I try. And I must anticipate that the enemies of my Master will not take kindly to my attempting to agree with my Master. I can accept all of that. As long as I get myself out of the way, I have accomplished what I'm asking about here.
Much like the person stated in your e-mailed comment, communication is a two-way street. Your desires are good. I believe you when you say you try to write this way because I can't count how many times you make the disclaimer before you post that you're going to be disagreeing with an idea and not trying to belittle the person espousing the idea, or some other disclaimer to that affect.
I agree with you on the vast majority of topics, so when I read your blog, I've never felt that you've come across in any of the negative ways you described. That's even the case when we posted over at Study Light. But, I've seen many people get upset with you in both of those settings, as well, when I thought you were as nice as you could be without compromising your beliefs.
The reason I don't see you as arrogant or insulting when I agree with you (in both the actual truth and in the way the truth was shared) is because in my agreement, I would vicariously have to be arrogant and insulting, too. However, if I were always disagreeing with you, I can see how I would think those negative things, not because of what you're saying, but because of my pride. In order for me to be right, you'd have to be arrogant and insulting, and so you would be perceived that way.
People who have truly died to self can disagree about something and still discuss it without any trouble whatsoever. This just rarely happens because not many exercise this Holy Spirit-instilled ability on a regular basis, myself included. And that's just to mention followers of Christ you dialog with, not those who are enslaved to sin (and self). They will always accuse you of those negative things because they can't serve anyone other than themselves. Christ said that they will hate us because they hated Him, so it's no wonder people who stand for truth, no matter how nicely they speak it (or write it, as the case may be), will be accused of everything from being arrogant and insulting to outright bigots.
Post a Comment