Truth & Respect
“One cannot sacrifice truth at the altar of respect. To be sure, truth doesn’t eliminate respect. But respect should not be an end in itself. And as you know, truth is no respecter of persons… Respect for the right of another to be wrong does not mean that the wrong is right.” Ravi Zacharias (The Lotus & The Cross)
smijer
on July 24th, 2009
I hear Ravi Zacharias broadcasting on the radio here sometimes on the weekends. I think a better “truth” quotation comes from Samuel Taylor Coleridge:
Respect may not be an end unto itself, but if you ain’t got it my friend, you’re in trouble.
rogermorris
on July 25th, 2009
Your quote makes some incorrect assumptions.
1. Christianity is not the same as, or the source of, truth.
2. Belief in Christian truth divides rather than unites.
3. Belief in Christian truth automatically results in arrogance and self-obsession.
I would suggest that none of these assumptions are accurate.
smijer
on July 26th, 2009
1. This is not assumed. A person can care more about Christianity than about knowing the truth, even if, coincidentally, Christianity is true. However, if a person values Christianity more than the truth and, coincidentally, Christianity is not true - that person will likely never learn of it.
2. There is not “Christian” truth and “non-Christian” truth, except for subjective meanings of the word “truth”. A care for real truth can help bring unity. A system in which truth is a lower concern than faith has the capacity to bring division.
3. Arrogance and self-obsession is what makes truth subservient to Christian identity in the first place.
I’ll add, in response to RZ, that some questions where establishing unanimity about the truth of the matter is likely less important than respect. There are many areas where my wife and I disagree, but few that are so important that we each must insist that our own view prevail and mutual respect be damned.
rogermorris
on July 27th, 2009
Smijey, here’s a thought experiment.
Suppose Person A believes that a red traffic light means stop at an intersection. Suppose Person B believes that a red traffic light means to proceed through an intersection or believes that a red traffic light has no meaning and should be ignored.
What is the correct action of Person A towards Person B in this situation:
1. Person A should respect the rights of Person B to believe what ever he wants, afterall it is intolerant to force your own beliefs on another person. Therefore Person A should allow Person B to continue to believe this about the nature of red traffic lights out of respect for that person, despite the fact that this belief is incorrect and potentially life-threatening?
2. Person A, while respecting Person B’s right to his beliefs, should try to explain that Person B’s belief about red traffic lights is incorrect, and continued belief in this manner dangerous. Should Person A have this discussion with Person B , in a polite and respectful manner, even if it was deemed disrespectful for Person A to claim to have a true understanding of the nature and meaning of red traffic lights?
What is most important - conveying truth and correcting error, or respecting the right of others to hold particular beliefs, whether correct or incorrect?
smijer
on July 27th, 2009
In the situation you describe, educating a person on the local conventions (assuming of course that they are new in town & haven’t had a chance to learn them) should be a relatively simple task that can be done quite respectfully.
Now, let’s say that for some reason it isn’t. Let’s say that this is a fellow that has lived in this town where red lights mean stop all his life, he’s crossing a busy intersection, and he simply doesn’t believe you when you tell him something he could hardly not already know. The first order of business, then, is avoiding an accident - so if talking to the imbecile doesn’t work out, you pull him out of the way of the truck. The second order of business, once the moron is out of the street, is to take him to a shrink to get his head examined!
Now, let’s do a different one (with pretty much the same result) - You’re out in your back yard digging a flower bed and your neighbor comes along shouting that there is a piano falling from the sky directly onto you and your petunias. You have to move now, they say, or you will be struck. Just for the heck of it, you glance up to make sure there’s really no piano. You tell the fellow you don’t see a piano, but he insists that there is a piano and you must move or die! Furthermore, this happens to you every time you go out to garden and your neighbor happens to see you. Is it more important to convince your neighbor that he is wrong so he will leave you alone and let you dig your garden, or more important to get him to a psych ward asap?
The moral of this story is that - as I mentioned in my comment - in many or most situations, establishing the truth can be done respectfully (without assuming the person you are working with is incredibly stupid) and/or it is of secondary concern. You give an example where one of the persons involved is very clearly right about an uncontroversial issue to begin with and the other is clearly out of their ever-loving gourd.
I give a counterexample of the same sort.
But respect demands that I see you not as a developmentally disabled person who needs to get his head examined, but as someone who is capable of understanding a well-reasoned argument and who is well within your own rights to politely reject it. And respect demands the same of you toward me.