Presumed Intent

"Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples - while judging ourselves by our best intentions.  And this has strained our bonds of understanding and common purpose.

But Americans, I think, have a great advantage.  To renew our unity, we only need to remember our values.  We have never been held together by blood or background.  We are bound by things of the spirit - by shared commitments to common ideals."

President George W. Bush

We're doing our nightly reading through Joshua and we've finally gotten through the land division descriptions.  Last night, we read the last half of chapter 22, where the tribes of Gad, Reuben, and the half tribe of Manasseh return across the Jordan to the east side and the land they claimed.  When they got back across the river, they built an altar of imposing size at the edge of the Jordan.   At the sight of this, the rest of the tribes were convinced that these two and a half tribes had violated God's commands, as the altar for sacrifice should have been at Shiloh.  And because they were convinced that the two and a half tribes had done wrong, they were prepared to punish them.  "And when the people of Israel heard of it, the whole assembly of the people of Israel gathered at Shiloh to make war against them."

They were ready to go to war against their own kinsmen because of what they saw and what they thought they understood.

Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, and they sent emissaries to the tribes of Gad, Reuben, and the half tribe of Manasseh to ask why the altar had been built.  They sent the son of the chief priest and ten chiefs, each a head of a tribe of Israel.  And when they asked the two and a half tribes east of the Jordan, they discovered that they completely misunderstood why those tribes built an altar.

The tribes of Gad, Reuben, and the half tribe of Manasseh had a vision of the future.  They foresaw a future division that would become an issue.  "No, but we did it from fear that in time to come your children might say to our children, 'What have you to do with the Lord, the God of Israel?  For the Lord has made the Jordan a boundary between us and you, you people of Reuben and people of Gad.  You have no portion in the Lord."  They foresaw a time when the people would forget their history, when they would forget why the two and a half tribes settled on the east side of the Jordan, and forget their tie to the rest of Israel.

The altar was built to be a reminder of that history.

You can imagine, this explanation, combined with the two and a half tribes assurances in "The Mighty One, God, the Lord! The Mighty One, God, the Lord!" three names of God used as a form of an extreme oath, put the relationship between the two parts of Israel, the two sides of the Jordan back right.

This story gives us a prime example of how we should proceed in circumstances of disagreement.  First and above all, we should seek understanding.  "The one who gives an answer before he listens - this is foolishness and disgrace for him."  Proverbs 18:13.  Before we ascribe intent, before we act as if someone else is in the wrong, we should seek to understand their perspective.

How can we as Christians presume someone else's intent?  How can we presume malice?  

And yet, aren't we the first to do so?  

Haven't we painted much of the rest of the world out to get us?  Democrats are out to destroy us.  Socialists are out to destroy America and Christians.  This faction is ruining Christianity.  That faction is persecuting us.

I love that quote from George Bush and have referred to it often.  Because it's true.  We grant ourselves and the groups we belong to all sorts of latitude because we know the intentions of those involved.  And yet, when we look at other groups, we presume their intent.  When it's someone we disagree with, we presume the worst intent.  And only evaluate the evidence that supports our position.

We're fracturing in America, we're on the verges of conflict because we presume the worst intents of others and will not seek understanding.

We as Christians should be the first ones seeking to break this cycle.  To extend grace.  To seek understanding.  Yes, to speak up and stand firm when someone's intent is un-Biblical, particularly with those who are claiming Christ's name.  But not to leap to that condemnation as the first step in conversation.

We should also be the first ones to acknowledge the malice, the ill intent, the recklessness in our own pasts.  To admit that our pasts are not as rosy as we would like to paint them.  To admit and recognize that we have been great recipients of grace and should likewise extend it.  To take the plank out of our own eye before even speaking.

We can and should do better.  If nothin else, let's at least follow Hanlon's razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."  

I hesitate a bit with Hanlon’s razor, as I don’t want us presuming stupidity either.  That plays into another into another problematic us versus them mentality in Christianity, the idea that we’re right and everyone else who does not share our particular variant of theological understanding, our particular eschatology, our particular hermeneutic is wrong.  a model that inflates our own intelligence over everyone else’s. Perhaps we should focus instead on one of the quotes from which it is derived. “Let us not attribute to malice and cruelty what may be referred to less criminal motives.”  Jane West, The Loyalists: An ahistorical Novel (1812).  In short, let us presume the best. 

And if we want to presume intent or intelligence, let's take into account our own stupidity first.

Big Question #4: Am I willing to yield?

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."

Carl Sagan

This topic has been on my mind a lot.  I think it shows in the history of this blog.  The nearly two years of this blog are littered with topics on the dangers of our insistence on being right.  Our refusal to compromise.  Our refusal to admit when we are wrong.  And our refusal to admit when we don't know.

More recently, Brother Paul's sermon brought it back to the forefront, with the passage in James showing that true wisdom is willing to yield.  It is open to reason.


"Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom.  But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth.  This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.  For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.  But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason [willing to yield], full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.  And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."

James 3:13-18

This makes me pause and reflect.  Am I willing to yield?  Is my wisdom of the type that could be described as pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason, willing to yield?  

Am I willing to debate?  And not in the sense of screaming at each other, with entrenched positions, designed only to make myself look better, smarter, more informed?  Am I really willing to engage in conversation?  To hear other points of view?  To actually consider them?

Am I open to having my mind changed?  Even on things that I may have considered sacred?  Am I willing to evaluate those sacred cows to see if they are essential, or just preferential?

And this goes in every realm of life.

Am I willing to admit that Republicans have good policies and Democrats make mistakes?  For entrenched conservatives, are you willing to admit that Democrats make good policies and are acting in what they believe is the best interest of this country?  Likewise, are you willing to admit that Republicans overreact, make bad policies, make mistakes, and sometimes look out for personal interests over country?

Am I as a Christian willing to concede points to atheists on theological debates, when the matters concern non-essentials of the faith?  Atheists, are you willing to concede that there are matters far beyond our comprehension, and questions that will remain un-answered regarding spiritual issues?

Am I as a person of faith willing to admit that science may better explain how the universe was created and functions?  And as a person of science, am I willing to admit that faith offers a better explanation as to why?

With issues of faith, am I willing to discuss differing interpretations and positions with fellow believers without drawing a right/wrong line?  Without falling into an us versus them trap?  To recognize that we both may be right and we both may be wrong, and possibly all at the same time?

As a white person, am I willing to yield to people of color when it comes to issues of racial disparity?  To acknowledge that the issues they raise do exist?  Such as those raised by black lives matter?

Am I willing to judge other groups by their best examples and myself by my worst intentions, instead of the other way around?

Am I willing to listen to traditionally oppressed groups and treat their concerns with validity and respect?

I hope I am.  I hope that my willingness to ask questions reflects a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue and debate.  That I am open to having my mind change.  I believe I am, but I also know and recognize that I have biases and blindspots that I may not recognize (another question coming up).

We as a society need to be able to compromise again.  To be able to have our minds changed.  To be able to grow.  To learn.  

It makes our world bigger and opens new possibilities.  I pray we have not become as hardened and as entrenched as it first may seem.  I still believe in the power of conversation.  Maybe not on a mass scale; that dialogue may be lost thanks to the commercial based news cycle.  But individually, one-on-one, I have to believe we can help each other see the other side.  To understand each other.  To reach each other.

If we are just willing to engage in a meaningful way.

“How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?” Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.”

Carl Sagan