The weekend before last, I spent a wonderful time away with the folk at Christchurch Currumbin up on the beautiful Gold Coast. It was an enormously encouraging time as we looked together at what the Bible has to say about the resurrection. On the Friday night, the meeting leader exhorted us to love each other:
You’re about to spend a weekend together. You’ll eat together, sleep in rooms separated by not-so-thick walls, share bathrooms together and be with each other 24/7. This isn’t like chatting after church on Sunday. This is going to mean learning to be gracious and patient with each other.
Well, they were certainly very gracious and patient with each other (and with me, which is remarkable indeed). But it made me wonder: what is the secret to living together in the same space without biting each others’ heads off?
A wise man once said to me, “One of the essential ingredients of a functioning team is the ability to assume the best of others”. On reflection, there is a crucial corollary: beware of assigning motives.
I have been working lately on my reaction to conflict, and I have realized that I start getting ready for a fight very quickly. As soon as someone disagrees with me, I find myself preparing to defend my turf. One of the particular things I notice is that I assume that the other person has said something in order to undermine me. Or, in other words, I readily interpret disagreement personally.
But it’s a lousy way to live. History suggests that I’m not all that good at interpreting motives. Has Fred just asked a question because (a) he thinks I’m stupid and wants to prove that to everybody else; (b) he wants to know the truth; or (c) he had a disagreement over that point with his spouse at breakfast this morning and would like the pastor to adjudicate? Has Jane opted not to show up at Bible study because (a) she’s falling away (b) she has serious theological differences of opinion with the leader or (c) she’s in hospital? It’s easy to think of ourselves as God when all that we are is self-deluded.
But it’s instructive to think about what your instant responses are to situations like these. Do you automatically think the worst or the best?
Whether you think the worst or the best will instantly be displayed in a thousand little ways in the tone of your conversation and in your body language when you see the person face to face. And if you’re feeling negative, you can guarantee that the other person will respond defensively and the conversation will only go down hill from there. If only we were careful to avoid assigning motives in the first place, a lot of the angst could be avoided.
How do you do that? I would suggest that you assume the motives of the other person are pure until shown otherwise. I am not saying that the motives of the other person will always be pure, nor am I suggesting that we be totally naive. But I suspect that relationships in which you assume the best of the other person until reality shows otherwise will nearly always get further and be more productive for the kingdom.
Great post, thanks Grimmo.
‘I would suggest that you assume the motives of the other person are pure until shown otherwise’.
Hi Paul. Your quote does seem unrealistic to me. I think it leads people to an unreality. And the ignoring of sin.
I would be interested to know if you think there is a third way. An “I don’t know’ category. ‘Don’t jump to conclusions – need to know more’.
You hold judgement and you keep loving/serving the person. You aren’t assuming the best or the worst in a situation, but you are not denying the sinful nature of man (including self) or your inability to know motives. The other person may not even fully understand their own motives, just like you may not understand yours.
This puts the emphasis on the individual focusing on loving/serving – counting the other person’s interests as more important than your own.
Jesus didn’t entrust himself to men but he always managed to love them. Even when they hurt him.
Di
So, so true. I need to remind myself of this constantly. Life is much simpler (and much happier) when you assume people are operating from pure motives…
Hi Di,
Yep, I agree totally. I think what I’m trying to overcome though is my pessimism. If I think I know their motives, then I become suspicious and the kinds of questions I ask and the way I ask them all convey my suspicion, which inevitably damages the relationship.
I guess I’m saying that my “I don’t know category” needs to involve me thinking the best so that I relate to people with grace and godliness.
Part of the problem is that I make all sorts of judgements in my head about people’s motives and reasons for doing things and then find out a week later that there were all sorts of circumstances I didn’t know about.
I’m certainly not advocating naivety and I know that people are evil. And over time, if someone has proven themselves to be regularly unreliable in some way or another, I will not ignore that completely. But I also know that I jump to conclusions way too often and I’m trying to guard against that.
I confess I agree a bit with Di.
I wonder if one of the life skills that tends to come with age and experience is the ability to assess people and act wisely towards them.
Or maybe we just get grumpier.
Maybe both.
Thought-provoking article. I would tend to lean towards the assuming-the-best philosophy even though my nature generally draws me in the other direction.
I was also interested in the leader’s statement: “This isn’t like chatting after church on Sunday. This is going to mean learning to be gracious and patient with each other.”
I think this reflects what I have observed at churches for many years – “chatting after church” is often an environment of superficiality, keeping up appearances and avoiding all things negative or controversial. My question is: shouldn’t our Sunday meetings be one of the ideal times to be learning to be “gracious and patient with each other”, and not just things like weekends away? Is a lack of such a need to be gracious and patient with others at our Sunday meetings a healthy sign, or perhaps a sign that our relationships do not go deep enough?
Can’t you think ‘Don’t know’ without falling into pessimissm?
Doesn’t self understanding (I am sinful) help prevent us from pessimism knowing we depend on the cross and therefore grace, mercy and compassion becomes our response to others?
Don’t we have to be careful when solving the problem of pessimism that we don’t end up with a Pelagianism rather than the ‘crossism’?
Di
PS
Paul, I am a stilted writer. This can easily make me sound grumpy or aggressive. However I am actually not feeling grumpy or aggressive. As I write now I can see a group of young pelicans gorging themselves on mullet. I am also enjoying this conversation as it makes me reflect on how I treat people and it has caused me to think about what the scriptures address on this issue. And Paul I am glad you have taken the time to write this post to help us be more godly.
Di
Hi Di,
Thanks, for your last comment, but I never doubted your graciousness. I get what you mean by Pelagianism and I certainly want to avoid that. I am not suggesting that I suddenly think of everyone as sin free.
You’re thoughts about gospel-centred, cross-focused relationships are really helpful.
Hey, G.
Great stuff. Personally, I don’t think I assign motives quite like that, but I’m all aboard with you on preparing a defence way too quickly.
Lately I’ve been thinking about the power of concession. It’s surprising and disarming when you’re in conversation with someone (and I’m thinking about conversations with unbelievers) and you simply concede ground to them when there’s the slightest indication that you should.
If they make a decent point about the violent history of Christianity, the apparent circularity of the doctrine of Scripture, the obvious presuppositions Christians lean on, you make an effort to grant them whatever you can.
This seems to change the whole tone of a conversation, from you both defending your turf (see Stanley Fish on that phenomenon), to a situation in which you appear to be standing together facing the same direction: two finite but inquisitive humans trying to find out the truth.
Of course, you still disagree on many fundamentals, but the change in tone can open up all sorts of fruitful avenues of discussion, because you have shown you’re a sympathetic listener.
PS Captcha sucks. But I’ll concede it’s a necessary evil!
Whenever I assume the worst of people’s motives, I’m never disappointed. Whenever I assume the best, I always am.
I include myself at the head of the list.
Biblically speaking, the Lord Jesus is on my side I think.
So now Paul, I’m wondering why you wrote that post.
Actually though, we have to grant that that there are exceptions, and this may well support the ‘I don’t know’ position. Although if you click through on that link, you will see how rare such exceptions are.
Here’s Paul speaking at the end of a lifetime of ministry:
“At my first defense no one came to stand by me, but all deserted me. May it not be charged against them! ” (1 Tim 4:16)
I wonder if a more realistic and genuinely gracious attitude, then, is to say and pray with Paul “May it not be charged against them!” Or perhaps “Father forgive them” (Luke 23:34).
Oops I meant 2 Tim 4:16 not 1 Tim 4:16
Was reminded from Romans 15 today…
May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.
Great article, Paul, especially with the qualification that often the assume-the-best attitude does not mean pre-sume the best (i.e. it can be in Di’s not-sure-yet category).
I too have been helped in leadership by trying to adopt this practice.
But I also thought of Gordo’s verse where Jesus did not entrust himself to men because he knew what was in a man.
However, the image of God is not entirely obliterated so that men and women only do totally evil all the time. Moreover, we do not know people – individually – with anything like the insight and wisdom that the Lord Jesus had.
And given that I am preaching on it this Sunday, I wonder if 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 has any relevance?
In context Paul cannot be encouraging naivety (e.g. chapters 5 or 11:17ff).
But perhaps love’s patience and kindness and not reckoning up of wrongdoing might incline us away from being suspicious and assuming the worst about people’s motives.
A couple of thoughts…
Something important in all of this is that we can’t see another’s motives or know our own.
Man can only look on the outward appearance of another. God looks on the heart.
John Woodhouse makes an interesting point about David …’a man after God’s own heart’.
In ‘Preaching the Word’ series from Crossway John Woodhouse writes:
‘A man after God’s own heart’ has been taken in popular Christian jargon to mean a particularly godly man, a man with a heart like God’s. But I do not believe that the words can mean that. ‘A man after God’s own heart’ means a man of God’s own choosing, a man God has set his heart on. ‘A man after God’s own heart’ is – if I can put it like this – talking about the place the man has in God’s heart rather than the place God has in the man’s heart.’ (p287)
I found this helpful in connection to how we relate to our fellow christians.
God’s perspective of the people we are relating to is what matters. That is what is to influence my attitude.
I don’t have to be pessimistic or optimistic or think people have some good in them. I can assume their hearts are rebellious – they may be as bad as mine. BUT they are created by God, God has chosen them – he has set his heart on them. Their motive might be shocking when they are speaking to me – I don’t know – and my motive when listening could be much worse (if I could always know my motives!!).
But I need to love and serve them as one whom God has set his heart.
Di
PS Thinking that people are ‘good’, even initially, can lead to ‘victims’ being further marginalised and the truth trampled.
oops…
Forgot to mention the title of John Woodhouse’s excellent book:
1 Samuel: Looking for a Leader
Di
After reading people’s comments, I had to go back and re-read the article. What I really took from this is something I hope to share with a friend of mine tomorrow – the reaction to conflict.
She and I share the same misfortune as you, reacting defensively to disagreement. In that knowledge, she and I are both actively trying not to always react so negatively. I believe your reasoning behind the defensiveness is right smack on. We assume the worst of people, without stopping to think of what life in their shoes might be like. And you know what happens when you assume something…