“And I think love is shown by telling the truth. The whole truth. Sometimes, the brutal truth. Sure, you need to say it respectfully. Sometimes, you need to say it gently. But unless you are prepared to say it how it is, you are misleading someone. Maybe even lying to them. But this is the problem in the world today: people prefer perception over reality.”
Sam Dyche
This quote from Everton manager, Sam Dyche was recently shared by John Stevens of Facebook recently, without comment. It provoked a lot of discussion, primarily around whether or not Sam was right, or whether there are situations where we should not tell the whole truth.
Now, before we go any further, I want to note two things that I’m not sure were always picked up in the conversation that ensued. First, we need to pay attention to Sam’s use of the word “gently”. There is no use claiming to be “speaking the truth in love” if no-one is able to pick up much of a hint of love! Secondly, it’s a pithy quote, presumably in the context of an interview relating to football and so, I’m sure that we would want to nuance such a quote.
For example, one comment came back to the effect that we would not want to deliver the truth, the whole brutal truth to a child about a genetic defect that may have implications for later life. Of course not -and there are the crucial aspects of nuance.
First when it comes to telling the truth, there is a question about who is responsible for communicating. For example, when there is bereavement, we would usually want to give the family opportunity to speak to who they need to know in order to make sure they have heard it from the right people. You don’t want a situation where a close relative finds out via social media. In the example given above, it certainly would nt be for me or you to communicate the information about a genetic issue unless we were either the medical doctor involved in diagnosis or the child’s parent.
Secondly, there is a time and a place to share information. The example of Jesus saying to his disciples that there was more that he had to tell them but they could not bear it has been used as an example of withheld truth. However, in that case, Jesus was not withholding truth. First because this was not about information sharing on conversation, or response to questions. Rather, it was about revelation and the need for the Holy Spirit to come in order to lead the disciples into all truth. Second because this was not an attempt hold back truth in a manner which could have been deceptive. Jesus was open and transparent, that there was more to come and he was clear that at the right time and in the right way, the disciples would be told these truths.
Another factor to consider is confidentiality. When Samuel went to anoint David, he was not to tell Saul that this was what was happening. This was in order to protect the mission. Telling Saul would have prevented Samuel from acting and David, the rightful recipient of God’s message from hearing.
With all that in mind, I believe that Sam Dyche was right in his observation.
Faithroots 