Speak the Truth in Love

By Pastor Marcia Moret Sietstra

Crestwood UCC, August 13, 2006

Ephesians 4:25-5:2

Having just returned from 2 ½ weeks at Chautauqua, it is still on my mind.  I spent a week learning about global warming from lecturers who included former vice president Al Gore.  I attended lectures on Jewish/Muslim/Christian relations and participated in Muslim prayers.  I worshipped with 5000 on Sunday mornings in the outdoor amphitheater after worshipping in the little UCC chapel with 50 other UCC’ers.  I ate too much ice cream, laughed and stayed up late talking with dear friends who return year after year, and I often found myself making a mental note to remember this or that, and take it home to all of you. 

One of the things I love about Chautauqua is its houses—hundreds of gingerbread cottages, mostly built in the 1800’s, and impeccably restored with great attention to keeping them as close to their original design as possible. This summer, I chuckled to see that a couple of new houses built near the front gate had been repainted this year, even though they were built brand new and painted just last year.  But the reason they were repainted is because they caused quite a controversy last summer. 

The houses are called the Pink Ladies.  They are part of a brand new, little housing development which a famous, modernistic architect was selected to design in an area that used to be tennis courts.  People either love or hate his modernistic look, which incorporated the Victorian look and porches of the 1800’s with modern designs, including a huge circle painted on the front of each of his first two houses.  On one of the houses the circle was painted the wildest, boldest shade of pink I have ever seen, with the surrounding color another bold shade of pink that covered the entire house.

Well, when the season opened last summer, complaints came pouring in from Chautauqua property owners—calls to the president, Tom Becker, and angry letters to the editor of the daily newspaper—criticizing the horrid colors, especially the pinks, and demanding that the Chautauqua Architectural Board force the owner to repaint the houses.  It was the subject of a great deal of gossip as well, which quickly moved from the color of the houses to the home owner’s character.  The pink one disturbed the neighbors most. Things like: “I heard that he painted it that dreadful pink just to get back at the Architectural Review Board because they wouldn’t accept his first house design.”  “Well, I heard that the owner uses drugs—that would explain it—only somebody on drugs would choose those god-awful colors!”  Rumors flew—rumors about the homeowner’s integrity, honesty, and even rumors about the homeowner’s sexuality.

Chautauqua’s president, Tom Becker, addressed the subject head on in his opening day speech.  He said, with a smile, “There has been a lot of talk about the Pink Ladies, and there are strong opinions about the colors they are painted.    I understand that these colors are a bit unusual for Chautauqua’s community.  And I want you to know that we are reading your letters and hearing your complaints, which number over 50 in just two days.  The architectural board will be visiting with the architect and the homeowner.”  President Becker offered some humorous possible solutions.  And then his face became more serious, as he said, “I am amazed at how quickly the discussion has moved from the content of complaints about paint to the character of the person who owns the pink house.

The rumors that have spread about the owner of the pink house are unkind and  inappropriate.  They illustrate the loss of civility in the public sphere in our country today.”  He continued, “It’s fitting that one of our week’s themes this summer is Civil Discourse.  It is my hope that we can learn more about how to have candid dialogue that focuses on the content of our disagreements rather than the character of those with whom we disagree.”

Clearly, this tendency to criticize the character of those with whom we disagree is a human problem, not unique to our day, since we see it in the letter to the Ephesians that is our text today.  The writer says “Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear.”  A couple of chapters earlier the writer says, God has “broken down the dividing wall…[of] hostility between us” (2:14) and he tells the people at the church in Ephesus, who are obviously having disagreements, to “speak the truth in love” (4:15).

I’ve always appreciated candor—saying what you think, speaking your mind, but the writer of Ephesians reminds us to do it in positive ways that build up the other person.  An important component of speaking the truth in love is examining our own motivation.  Ask yourself: why do I want to speak the truth to this person?  Is it because I want to convince them I’m right?  To indulge my own need for satisfaction?  Am I trying to convince them for the sake of justice? Is it a justice that is big enough to include the person with whom I disagree?  The truth we speak is far more powerful if the other person feels cared about.  Then their hearts can be open to the impact of the truth we share.  But often the way we express ourselves shifts the discussion away from the content of our disagreement to the character of those with whom we disagree, and then no one is open to hearing the other.

I think the writer of Ephesians is recommending candor, but kind candor.  I think it might be interesting to see an example of how this could play out in our own family disagreements.  So I’ve written a little script here, and I’d like for a couple of people to come up and pretend to be a married couple and read it.   James and Emily, would you come up and act out a little situation that demonstrates for us how quickly a disagreement can degenerate into an attack on character, instead of focusing on the content of the disagreement. 

[Negative illustration script follows, read by two college-age young adults.]

Emily: Well, dear, we need to make our vacation plans.  I’d really, really like to go to a sunny beach and get out of the cold for a week this winter.

James:  Well, that’s an idea…or we could go skiing.  I really don’t like the beach.  I think we should go skiing in Colorado.

Emily:   But you know that I hate skiing!  You are so insensitive—do you really think I want to spend my vacation falling down the mountain?  You’re being selfish! 

James:  Well I hate the beach—I’m sure you haven’t forgotten that I sunburn on the beach!  You’re the insensitive one, not caring if I get burnt to a crisp on my vacation.  And you think I’m selfish?  Who made you the queen around here anyway?!

Notice how they so quickly moved from discussing the content of their disagreement to a personal attack on each other’s character.  Each moved away from discussing the vacation to calling each other “insensitive.”  Now let’s see how their conversation might have gone, if they stuck to discussing the content of their disagreement.  Notice they are using mostly “I” statements about how they feel, rather than “you” statements that tend to make accusations about each other’s character.

[Positive illustration script]

Emily:  Well, dear, we need to make our vacation plans.  I’d really, really like to go to a sunny beach and get out of the cold for a week this winter.

James:  Well, that’s an idea…or we could go skiing.  I really don’t like the beach.  I think we should go skiing in Colorado.

Emily:  Hmmm.  We have a problem don’t we…I love the beach, but you don’t.  And you love skiing, but I don’t.  That makes it hard to plan our vacation.  What could we do that is fair to both of us?

James:  This is a tough one, Pookie.  I remember now that you fall a lot when we ski, and of course I sunburn on the beach.  Do you think we should look for a third option that might be pleasant for both of us—maybe a trip to a city where we’ve never been?  We could see some great museums and maybe a baseball game.

Emily:  And maybe an art gallery and a play or musical!  Let’s think more about this, and talk again after we’ve had a chance to come up with some other new ideas.  I like the idea of finding a vacation spot that we will both enjoy.  That seems fair to me.

Oh James, you are so smart, and handsome, and…hey wait!  James!  Did you write this part of the script?

Tomorrow Jean and I will be hosting a conference here, called “Controversy and the Clergy.”  It will provide a place for civil dialogue on two extremely controversial, volatile issues:  abortion and gay marriage.  A wise older member of Crestwood recently expressed her well-founded nervousness about the church getting involved in discussing political issues. 

I share her nervousness.  But I am convinced that the church has a responsibility to offer a safe space for discussion of complex moral issues, which people need to figure out for themselves.  If we fear conversation, then we cease to offer moral guidance, and if the church doesn’t offer moral guidance, there is something very wrong.

What we can do is offer a place where the discussion takes place in respectful, positive ways that honor the dignity of everyone in the conversation.   Over the next two days, at Crestwood on Monday and then at South Park UCC in Rapid City on Tuesday, over 80 clergy and lay leaders will work together to develop ways to lead respectful, helpful discussions on these moral issues in their churches.  The presenters and clergy leaders are Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Unitarian, UCC, and Jewish.

No media will be allowed to attend.  No political candidates will be introduced or endorsed.  There are a few candidates attending, who also happen to be lay leaders in their churches, but they have pledged not to make a speech, not to put out signs or campaign in anyway.  The focus is on education of clergy and lay leaders so they, in turn, will feel competent to lead conversations on these complex issues in their home churches.

At the opening of the conference, we will ask the participants to speak the truth, as they see it, but to do so carefully and consciously.  We will ask them to be candid and honest, but to do it kindly, in ways that are useful for building up, so that their words may give grace to those who hear.

This means no one will be allowed to impugn the motives or intelligence or character of those with whom they disagree.  We’ll focus on the content of our disagreement.  Maybe we will be able to find some common ground, a 3^rd way that represents a coming together to find solutions.  Maybe it will be an opportunity for new learning.  Or maybe we will simply manage to practice peaceful disagreement in a spirit of respect.

In our homes, in our churches, and in the secular world this is what we as Christians are challenged to do—to speak the truth in ways that lead to increased harmony, understanding and peace.  May we do so. Amen.