Today I would love to give my readers a lesson, free of charge (for most people) concerning the problem of false dilemmas. False dilemmas are sucker’s choices, attempts made by people to justify their own lack of love or courage by pointing to an extremely unpleasant choice, and making what they see to be the “lesser” of the evils. In order to illustrate this lesson, let us talk today about the sucker’s choice of having to tell people what you think are unpleasant truths (though they usually aren’t truths, but rather opinions, surmises, and judgments, even though they are very unpleasant) or keeping up false appearances and pretense by not saying anything about unpleasant matters.

On the face of it, the choice between confrontation and silence does appear in many relationships and situations. Certainly my own life has seen no shortage of ugly confrontations or equally frosty and lasting cold wars. (I say this as being honest about myself, not as bragging—I am a person with a great natural capacity for resentment and hostility.) However, it appears so because such relationships are dysfunctional and because the people involved in them (myself included) are unskilled in the finer arts of diplomacy, even when one genuinely wants what is best for all parties involved. When someone does not genuinely want what is best for all parties concerned, but simply wants to maintain control or manipulate others or situations, then there is no chance of mutually beneficial communications, because all interaction will be judged in a utilitarian light for the person’s self-interest.

But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that all the parties involved genuinely want what is best for all, and are not acting out of selfish interest but genuine mutual concern. After all, such situations are the only ones which offer the possibility of successful resolution apart from some sort of warfare. So, if everyone has good intentions, we all know that things can end up very screwed up, but we must start with good intentions (even if it’s not much of a beginning). With all parties having the best of intentions and the sincerest of motives, the difficulty in a contentious discussion, especially about unpleasant or difficult or embarrassing matters, is for both parties to convey those intentions and motives to build trust for discussing the difficult matters between them.

This is easy to say, and not easy to do. I have mentioned frequently (and will do so again), that it is entirely pointless for someone to attempt to communicate to me what they (usually largely falsely, though with some small smidgen of truth) consider to be unpleasant truths unless they do so having previously shown personal respect. After all, one cannot take the speck out of my eyes when a giant moat (of being unloving and disrespectful, at least) is in your own eyes. This respect, though, in all fairness, needs to be mutual. We all are all the children of a King—and so we all deserve to be treated with honor and respect, even if (especially if) there are difficult matters to discuss. Again, this is easy to say and not easy to do, but before we can achieve such a difficult task (which I struggle with on a daily basis) we must at least recognize the target we are aiming for and the standard we are working towards.

When we genuinely respect and care for other people, we will look for ways that they can “save face” even while looking for their ultimate good in growing as people. We all are flawed, we all have weaknesses, and we all make mistakes. Likewise, we all are somewhat prickly and proud when people hit us in our weak spots, jumping to defend ourselves (often through counterattack) rather than recognizing the small grain of truth in what is a massively unfair and mostly mistaken judgment. We are also all somewhat unwilling to charge pell-mell into conflict about everything that bothers us, often suffering in silence because we do not know how to “confront” someone about something they do that annoys us. But if we genuinely care about them we will care both about their dignity and honor and about their ultimate good, and they will care about ours. We will therefore act in ways that allow others to preserve their dignity even as we seek difficult and unpleasant change. If you do not have someone’s best interests in mind, they will see through you and respond accordingly, especially if they are a suspicious and prickly person.

This is where the false dilemma comes in. The best communication about delicate subjects is neither avoiding the issues nor “confronting” the person. Rather, the best communication about delicate subjects starts with information gathering. First you must see whether your information is accurate. If it is not, it may have to be revised or corrected (and that is no skin off my back—I’d rather learn the truth than always be seen as being right myself), which then allows all parties involved in a conversation to work with better information, and make less hasty and less unfair judgments about other parties, their character, and their behavior. But to do so we need to avoid false dilemmas. We need to recognize that there are other options other than silence and hostility. There is friendly and peaceful information gathering, there are sincere attempts to understand where others are coming from, there is respect for the sensitivities of other people around us, so that mutually beneficial communication can result.

For a difficult conversation is like trying to build a bridge over a large body of water (let’s say it is a bay, for example). On both sides are two people or two groups with their own goals, their own perspectives, and their own issues. Between them is a large body of water that keeps the two from meeting face to face, or communicating quickly and effectively with each other. The two sides both want a better way of communication, so they begin a project to build a bridge over the body of water. To so, both have to examine what sites on both sides are the most compatible for building the bridge, what transportation networks and existing infrastructure the two sides have that the bridge has to connect into, and what other purposes the bridge is to be used for (are the currents strong in the water—meaning that the bridge needs to be a suspension bridge? Is there a need to keep the body of water open so that boats can pass up and down for trade, in case it would need to be a suspension or a draw bridge). The more elaborate the bridge needs to be or the greater the gulf between them, the more expensive the work is, and the more work needs to be done in preparation. The smaller the body of water or the more simple the bridge, the less expensive and time-consuming.

It is only after the bridge is built that one can have genuine conversations, genuine and easy interactions, and friendly intercourse of trade, travel, and the like. Too many people forget this lesson when it comes to delicate matters. They think that their god-like powers of intuition allow them to understand exactly what is wrong that others need to fix about themselves, when usually we walk around with a lot of planks in our eyes and a lot of people who are furious with us and see us as impossible to talk to in a reasonable fashion. And they are right. A one-man (or woman) dynamite crew in Elihu-mode (see Job) is not a qualified bridge-builder. And if you desire what is best for all people you try to build bridges, not blow up buildings like a terrorist. Again, if you want to tell difficult truths to others and you don’t genuinely care about others, but you love to cut at them and hurt them anyway—you are an emotional terrorist. Don’t expect to be loved or appreciated for your evil deeds, either by the people you hurt or by God in eternal judgment.

There are a variety of ways that one can discuss delicate subjects, but what is most important is that you ensure there is mutual trust and respect and understanding first, before you give them truth with both barrels. Otherwise you’re just an idiot with a gun trying to shoot down other people. Such people are psychopaths—in our society we jail them, and the Bible recommends the death penalty for such behavior. Don’t be that kind of person. Instead, be the kind of person that recognizes that there is no false dilemma between allowing a person to preserve their dignity and telling them difficult truths (even about themselves). There is no choice between them. You can do both, as long as you really care and are willing to take the time to come to a meeting of hearts and minds, laying the groundwork for a godly and mutually beneficial relationship before you start telling them unpleasant truths. Class dismissed for today—please pay your fee at the door if you are here because of court orders.