‘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

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.

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?

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

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!

Oops I meant 2 Tim 4:16 not 1 Tim 4:16

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?

Love is patient, love is kind. ... it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil ... [NIV]

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.

oops…

Forgot to mention the title of John Woodhouse’s excellent book:

1 Samuel: Looking for a Leader

Di