“If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.” (1 Timothy 6:3–5)
Commenting on my post about intolerance from Wednesday, Paul Smith reminded me
But to say that everyone holds every single one of their convictions in absolute purity is also a false statement. Some of our convictions are derived from a pure motivation to be correct – and sometimes a big paycheck and a chance to present the keynote lectures all across the nation are just as compelling, as are keeping peace with one’s relatives or trying to earn a seat at the elder’s table.
He’s right. That’s not an easy thing to judge, but there are people who hold certain views for improper motives… even if they may not be aware of it.
I guess I’d argue that in such matters we have to go with innocent until proven guilty. As I said on Wednesday: “every fellow believer deserves the benefit of the doubt.” I’m going to assume that people have good motives unless I’m shown otherwise.
That said, we do have to be aware that there will be wolves in sheep’s clothing. It’s not an easy balance to strike, but if I’m going to err, I want it to be on the side of grace.
Years ago I heard a saying that has served me well:
‘Tis better to trust someone who shouldn’t be trusted than to distrust someone who should be trusted.
I’ll be aware that wolves are out there. I’ll try and watch for them. But I’ll do my best to avoid crying wolf if the situation doesn’t warrant it.
Tim, thanks for the mention. I did not want my observation to sound like a refutation of your post, I think you did us all a great favor by writing it. To clarify my thoughts – I know some folks who are committed to a different interpretation of Scripture than what I have, and to me it absolutely defies logic and every rule of hermeneutics that I have been taught. But they absolutely, positively, *believe* it to be true, and hold their convictions with the purest of motives. On the other hand, there are individuals who change their beliefs like they change their clothes – I just happened to think of Ken Starr, who attended the Church of Christ while serving as Dean of the Law School at Pepperdine University, and who suddenly became a Baptist when offered the presidency of Baylor University. Change of deeply held convictions, or change of attendance predicated upon change of employment? It is not for us to judge (condemn), but it happens frequently enough to make a person suspicious, if not skeptical.
I think the real value of your post comes when we are introduced to someone with whom we have no history. If I do not personally know someone, or if there is no available record of his or her previous thoughts, then, as you stated, we are to extend grace to that person and accept his or her position as being genuine. Where doubt, or suspicion, might be appropriate is when there is a sudden – and perhaps unexplained – shift in “conviction” or when there appears to be an established history of shifting “convictions” to meet other observable goals.
As you alluded, Paul warned the Ephesian elders to be alert that no “wolf” should sneak in, even from among the elders themselves. I think an honest self-evaluation (which you demonstrated in your first article) would prove to any of us that even *our own* motives can be called into question, so your encouragement to extend grace first, and question only when given adequate reason, is more than appropriate.
Peace,
Paul