Paul wrote to the Galatians,
Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth? (Gal 4:16)Paul's was a rhetorical question. The assumption was that telling someone the truth (especially, as Paul was, in their best interest) did not make you their enemy. Today? Not so much. Telling the truth today may be regarded as friendly or may be regarded as an assault. Why? Because we don't know what a "friend" is anymore. We think it's someone who pats you on the back and tells you to just be yourself. "It's all good."
This is, of course, an oversimplification and a generalization. We know, for instance, that a friend doesn't tell her poor friend, "Embrace your poverty." She tries to help. It isn't a good friend who sees you about to step on a rattlesnake and does nothing to help. If there's a problem, a good friend steps in to support you. That's what friends are for. It's just that we've largely relinquished the right to say, "This is good and that is bad."
If we have a reliable truth source, then, and that source says things like, "The sexually immoral will not inherit the kingdom of God," I think we can safely say, "That's a bad thing." And a good person would want to warn a friend about something bad like that. If that source says that preaching a gospel contrary to the one we were given is accursed, I think it's reasonable to say, "I wouldn't want my friends to be accursed," and attempt to dissuade them from doing so.
We've all heard "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me" and we've all said, "Not so!" (or something to that effect). In this day and age of politically correct speech and a backlash against "hate speech" and all, we know that words can hurt. No doubt. But here's the question. If the words are true, even if they hurt, "Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?" Or does "truth" get nullified by "hurt"? Yes, by all means, we need to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15). Speaking the truth hatefully is not friendship. But truth spoken in love should not be considered a contradiction to being a friend. It's just our culture that sees it that way.
3 comments:
It's often said that a real friend is one who can say anything, including truths one refuses to acknowledge, as a means of protecting a person from the consequences of that person's own negative qualities.
Words can hurt, but the lesson of the expression "Sticks and stones..." was that we have the choice as whether words will hurt us or not. It's supposed to be for those who are innocent of whatever is said against them. If I'm a jerk and someone calls me a jerk, it probably should hurt if I've any honor and integrity at all. But if I'm not a jerk, I don't have to be hurt because what is said is untrue. And of course, it's not the same kind of hurt as getting hit with sticks or stones, so stop whining.
In fact, the way things are today, it seems that adage is more important than ever for folks to embrace. Race relations, for example, wouldn't be so strained if racial epithets were ignored and the source considered. Indeed, I've been called a racist for merely suggesting such a thing...and I don't feel hurt by it, just confused as to how my suggestion justifies the term.
Kind of goes along with the culture of the offended we live in these days.
Post a Comment