Skip to main content

Seeing Eye to Eye


  John ends his second letter with this statement:

Though I have many things to write to you, I do not want to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, so that your joy may be made full.
2nd John 1:12 

  It’s an odd way to write an inspired letter that will be part of the Bible. They may have, but we will never get to talk with John face to face. He does something very similar in his third letter as well.

 Why?

  It may be as simple as this. Sometimes the best way to handle an issue is face to face. John is dealing in both of these letters with issues that could have a great effect on the church in a specific place and the brotherhood as a whole. He addresses the issue but in the end, he knows the best way to handle this is in person. Even if we don’t get the persona visit, we can learn from his approach.

  So much communication in our world today is impersonal. Emails, text, social media. They are faster, easier and can cover so much more ground. But there is a downside. The written word can be misinterpreted, misread and mistaken.  Tone, accent, eye contact, and timber can change the meaning and clarity of words when they are spoken rather than written. It’s harder to be cruel when you look someone in the eye. It’s easier to see concern when the face isn’t miles away.   There is a give and take in a personal conversation that just isn’t in correspondence. Benjamin Franklin said it this way “Never try to ask by letter, To go yourself is far better

  I think we should remember this. If we have to criticize a brother or a deal with a sensitive issue, we might want to say more and write less. Before we take a written comment too harshly we might want to speak face to face with the person that wrote it. Condemnation is impersonal, concern is not.


  If something really needs to be said, doesn’t it deserve to be done face to face?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Until Midnight

    In Acts 20, there is the tragicomic event surrounding a young man by the name of Eutychus. He did what a lot of folks before and after him did, he fell asleep during a sermon. Unfortunately, he was setting in in the third story window at the time. So instead of nodding off and hitting the pew in front of him, he fell to his death. The good news was the apostle Paul was delivering the sermon and had the ability to bring him back.       I don’t know, however, if we can judge Eutychus too harshly. The sermon had gone on till midnight. Paul wouldn’t finish it up till daybreak. That’s a long lesson. I know some folks that might want to jump out of a window if I had a lesson that long, yet these Christians wanted to be there to hear Paul.   Don’t get me wrong, I’m not pushing for all night sermons but I think we might need to adopt these folks' dedication. They knew that Paul was only in town for a limited time only and they were determined to ...

The Mighty Gulf

  It is hard to get people on two sides of an issue to come together. Each has their own viewpoint, their perceptive, their own foibles, their own understanding.  To gain any common ground there must be something in common. Something or someone that can bridge the gulf between the two.   Could there be a greater gulf than there was between God and man? How could a holy perfect God find a way to connect to the fallen, imperfect mankind? How can one without temptation connect to those who are beset by it? How could limited mortal beings understand an omnipotent eternal God?   In 1 Timothy 2:5, we read, “ For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus .” The phrase mediator here describes a person that bridges the gap, a go-between. Jesus was one who could stand in both worlds. A perfect holy one who can understand our temptations, a man who would die yet live eternally, One who was God yet became flesh and dwelt among us. ...

How Dare You!

    Lewis Keseberg was tired of all the accusations against him so he filed a defamation lawsuit against Ned Coffeemeyer the man he saw as responsible for the rumors. The court found that Ned had indeed called Keseberg a “thief and murderer” without any proof but it didn’t rule very strongly in his favor by only imposing a fine of one dollar.  Maybe they were lenient because Ned Coffeemeyr had earlier rescued Lewis Keseberg from a terrible situation.  Maybe it was because the accusations while not proven were highly likely.  And maybe because Lewis Keseberg had admitted to eating people.   Lewis Keseberg was one of the members of the infamous Donner Party, a wagon train that got caught in the Siera Nevada mountain and resorted to cannibalism to survive. Keseberg wasn’t known as a very good person before those events and they certainly didn’t help improve his image. But to sue the very person who saved you seems to define the kind of person he was....