This morning, I read an interesting post from a friend about Nehemiah and the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s wall. However, what was most interesting was that after posting the initial message, he felt compelled to add a disclaimer stating that it was not about immigration or any current news topic. He was meditating on a biblical event in its original context and then applying it to his own spiritual life.
The reason this interested me is that it relates to something we’ve all experienced. When one speaks or writes, those who hear or read must often interpret the content. This process involves choices, even if we are not aware of them. Suppose you said something. I can choose one of three possible frameworks for interpreting it: negative, neutral, or positive. This is one reason why communication via email or text can be so challenging. You say something meant to be positive, but the reader ascribes certain emotions or intentions behind the statement.
Allow me to share an example. During the 2024 election, I got sick of all the rhetoric. Each side promised a better world if only they were elected. I created signs which read, “A better world does not come from the ballot box. It comes from changed hearts.” A good friend responded, “It sounds like you are saying not to vote.” Of course, I was not saying such a thing. It was that person’s interpretation.
I said there were three possible frameworks from which to choose when interpreting statements. I said these are negative, neutral, and positive. Of course, this is a spectrum. So, let’s look deeper at these to see how they apply when we respond to things people say.
If you say something, I can choose to interpret it in a negative way. In doing this, I assume to know what you mean and that your intentions are bad, or at least something I disagree with. This may even lead to the next choice of getting offended. Yes, getting offended is always your choice.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, we choose to interpret it in a positive light. I may understand what you are saying as being positive. It’s also possible that I know you and can safely assume you wouldn’t mean it in a negative way. I may also decide to assume you mean it positively, whether I understand it or not. This last gives the person the benefit of the doubt. As Christians, this should be more common than the negative. We should always seek to give others the benefit of the doubt—especially our fellow believers. If you are quick to assume the negative, perhaps there is something in you that needs to be laid at the feet of Christ.
Another option is neutral. This one is the most honest. This means you say something. I recognize that I do not fully understand your intentions. I refuse to assume your intentions because it would be choosing in ignorance. When taking this course of action, we recognize our lack of understanding and seek clarification from the person.
Of the three, the first (negative) should not be common among us. If something is obviously negative, then respond appropriately. I am talking about statements that are open to interpretation. We should err on the side of the positive. If we can’t do that, then we should seek more understanding and ask the person what was meant.
Let’s not be people who assume the worst of our brothers and sisters. Let’s assume the best in them, mourn when we do not see it, and consistently give the benefit of the doubt. The world would love to divide us. Let’s stop helping them do it.