I've decided that it's much harder for me to write when I'm feeling sick. My mind gets foggy, and complete and coherent sentences run circles around my feebly grasping mind, making the formation of understandable thoughts and arguments considerably more difficult. Also, my spare time tends to be spent sleeping instead of thinking, so there are fewer thoughts to write about in the first place. However, one thing I do manage to accomplish with great regularity when sick is to watch
Secondhand Lions. It's by no means what I would classify as a great movie, but it is definitely a good one, and its unique and innocent blend of reality and fantasy is perfect for those days when I want a relatively peaceful fun movie to occupy the time not spent in sleep.
One aspect of the movie, though, has always bothered me (if you haven't watched the movie, don't read further; I don't want to accidentally give anything away). At the relational climax of the movie, one of the older men tells his nephew, the main character, that things like goodness, justice, honesty and love are worth everything, while power and money are worth nothing. So far so good, right? But then he goes on to say that a man should believe in those good things, and believe that they are worth more than power and money, even if it isn't true, and that bothers me! Those things are worth believing in because they are true, because they come from the God of truth; their value is not independent of their truth status. So every time I come to that part of the movie I cringe a little, and wish they had written that part of the script differently.
Tonight as I watched the movie, however, I realized something. The uncle is wrong when he says that truth doesn't matter, but there is a grain of truth in his error, and it shows in how his advice is applied in the movie. The nephew is faced with a situation in which two opposing stories have been presented to him about his uncles: the story that they told him about their past, in which they lived with courage, justice, and love; and the story that several other characters throughout the movie have suggested, in which the uncles were thieves and ultimately cowards. The nephew has no way to determine which of these stories is true, but he is forced into a position where he has to make a choice. In that situation, would it be better for him to believe in the goodness and honesty of these two men (since their purported deceit and criminal actions have not been proven), or to believe that they lived for the pursuit of power and money (since, after all, they have quite a lot of money from some unknown source)? More generally, is it better to believe that a person acted with good intentions and can respond to a given situation with justice, honesty, and compassion, or is it better to believe that they acted with the intention to hurt and would respond to confrontation or rebuke with deceit, malice, and self-centeredness?
Let's look at the question from another perspective. When you or I make a mistake, say something that unintentionally hurts someone else, or do something sinful, do we automatically assume that we are full of spite and that our every action and word is deliberately hurtful or malicious? Do we assume that the worst possibility is, in fact, the reality about ourselves? Usually, unless we know without a doubt that the worst possibility is truly the reality (and sometimes even then), we do not. We give ourselves the benefit of the doubt, so to speak, because we want to believe that our actions are motivated by goodness and integrity even when they may not appear that way. And why do we want to believe this, when the evidence could be taken in a negative direction as easily as a positive? Simply, it is because we love ourselves. Because we love ourselves, we don't want to believe that we are as bad and nasty and small as we appear, and we want to become better.
Well, we are commanded to love each other as ourselves. If in loving ourselves we find ourselves wanting to believe in our own courage, justice, and honesty whenever reasonable evidence arises, then we should be doing the same for other people. We shouldn't desire to discover that their actions are motivated by malice, or interpret their words in a way that portrays them in the worst possible light. Instead of assuming that someone is intending to hurt or offend, when that is not the only plausible assumption, we should assume that they misunderstood, or didn't hear, or some other explanation of a more innocent sort.
One advantage of looking at other people in this way is that it encourages those good things in our own souls. When we are actively looking for goodness, love, honesty, and justice in other people, it motivates us to cultivate them in ourselves, and helps us to mentally dwell on those positive and praiseworthy qualities. Another advantage is that it helps keep us from unjust anger towards others, because we are not assuming that they intended to hurt us, and are thus far less tempted to bitterness, grudge-holding, and revenge-seeking. So while it is sometimes very necessary to acknowledge the sinfulness of another person's intentions, it is in most circumstances much more helpful to assume, when such an assumption is possible, that they are not so evil and miserable as they might seem - to believe, even though you cannot know that it is true, that they are acting with justice, goodness, and honesty.
Alright, hopefully that made some sense :P Like I said, I'm sick and I'm having a lot of trouble putting thoughts and words together. If I said anything that seems totally wrong, please allow me to claim the mental fog of sickness as my excuse :)