OPINION: Speaking truth to power is difficult but necessary sometimes

In 1955, after two world wars, on the heels of the Korean War, and amidst the global rise of totalitarian governments in Europe and Asia and Cold War, the American Friends Service Committee produced the pamphlet “Speak Truth to Power: A Quaker search for an alternative for violence.” They sought to outline how Quakers and members of other peace churches can help end the suffering that accompanies conflict, and to give “practical demonstration of the effectiveness of love in human relations.”  They aimed to speak to power, power being world leaders, power as in the American people who set the limits for authority in elected officials, and to the nature of power itself.  The document argues, “...love endures and overcomes; that hatred destroys; that what is obtained by love is retained, but what is obtained by hatred proves a burden.”  Even if you don’t count yourself among the pacifists, there’s a lot to wrestle with in those claims. Most people who understand a need for military intervention recognize that something in addition to violence has to be part of any plan to bring peace.  But how do we speak the truth in love, as Paul instructs in Ephesians?  How do we speak truth to power?

I was reminded of this when I read about how Nathan confronted David’s adultery and murder in 2 Samuel 11.  The dynamics of this passage and the masterful way the prophet leads the king to step outside himself gives us one of the most effective ways to help people hear a message that might bring a defensive reaction.  What happens when you accuse a person of something, or if someone accuses you?  How likely does that bring a change in attitude or behavior?  It’s more likely if you have a good relationship in place, one where you know you’re loved and respected.  Among strangers?  It’s not nearly as effective.  If I stood in front of my class and told a group of students to stop talking, what did I hear back?  “I wasn’t talking!”  If I walked to one or two students and whispered, “I hear talking from over here.  I’m not saying it was you, but I am saying it makes it hard for people to understand what’s going on.  If it’s you, please stop.”  That didn’t always work, but it worked better than calling a kid out in front of the rest of the class. 

Direct confrontation is necessary sometimes, but it’s often not the best way to communicate something corrective.  It’s not the best way to speak the truth in love.  Indirect teaching leads to self reflection and potentially self correction.  Indirect instruction like the one in 2 Samuel and like Jesus’ parables appeal to our innate empathy and logic, and help us crawl out of broken thinking.

We’re not likely to have to approach a king with a parable to bring his sin to his attention.  We are guaranteed to see untruths shared to rile people up. In the past couple of weeks we’ve seen how quickly misinformation can spur reactions, and as we go through the election season we’ll see more of it.  Angry responses to things that aren’t even true aren’t a good witness to being slow to anger and slow to speak.  Lots of people were upset by the opening ceremony because someone told them that Christianity was being mocked, nevermind that it was a homage to a feast of Bacchus.  It was a manipulation of people’s good faith, and it appealed to that good faith in order to spread a falsehood.  How do we address these situations constructively?

Direct communication may land you into a conversation that’s only good for raising everyone’s blood pressure.  If there’s not a narrative to be told, another path to indirect communication is through gentle questions.  For example, if that was a strange representation of the Last Supper, why was there a blue guy?  If it was intended to mock Christianity, why would you boycott your country’s athletes just because the host country did something offensive?  To speak the truth in love is to correct folks how we’d wish they’d correct us.  It doesn’t make it a pleasant experience, but it makes space for the Holy Spirit to work in our conversations to either clarify and bring us into greater holiness.  Note that the prophet confronted David, not in front of a crowd, but in a more private conversation.  Some things shouldn’t be called out from the pulpit or on social media. 

For many of us, being willing to speak truth to power also means being willing to step outside our default reaction.  Some of us are too blunt.  Some of us are too timid.  All of us need to work on our own stuff lest we be accused of hypocrisy.  I find it one of the most challenging parts of discipleship.  How do I speak in such a manner that doesn’t squander the call to speak truth in love?  How do I speak without unnecessarily alienating those to whom I speak?  When I’m not sure how, I try to think of Nathan’s confrontation of David.  I try to speak as I’d like to be spoken to, which is always a good plan.

Mary Beth Eberle is the pastor at Grace UMC Jackson and the Director of the Wesley Foundation at UM Lambuth. Contact her at freerangepastors@gmail.com.