greatly admire many of the writings of Mark Twain. He wrote with vigor and
profundity, while always employing plain commonsense. Too, not to be forgotten
among his savvy arsenal of resourceful rhetoric, is his ability to be completely
candid when circumstances demanded it.
In one of his essays, he wrote of a young, aspiring writer who sent him a letter,
asking him to put in a good word for her with Twain’s publisher. He had never
met the girl before. Nor, for that matter, had he ever read any of her writings –
except the letter she sent, of course. The only personal connection he had with
her, according to the girl, was that Twain knew her uncle – and for a short time at
that.
Twain decided to respond to her by showing how little his “influence” would
have had upon the publisher. He wrote in the form of a hypothetical conversation
that would most likely have taken place between the publisher and Mr. Twain. It
wasn’t a useful conversation, so far as the young novice was concerned, for the
fact was, Twain had no legitimate grounds to vouch for her, and he was not afraid
to speak frankly about it. Just here, I want to include the last few sentences of
that letter from Mr. Twain:
“I wish I could be useful to you, but, you see, they do not care for uncles or any
of those things; it doesn’t move them, it doesn’t have the least effect, they don’t
care for anything but the literature itself, and they as good as despise influence.
But they do care for books, and are eager to get them and examine them, no
matter whence they come, nor from whose pen. If you will send yours to a
publisher –any publisher – he will certainly examine it, I can assure you of that”.
Twain didn’t mince words. He “told it like it is” – a rare attribute these days. I’m
sure his bluntness would have proved to be very useful to the aspiring writer.
At the risk of sounding overly nostalgic for the “days of yore”, the willingness
to speak the truth irrespective of personal feelings that characterized Mr. Twain
and many of his contemporaries is a trait which, unfortunately, only few today
possess. Our generation, in spite of its many accomplishments and perks, seems
to have forgotten the immense value in being frank, particularly when it comes to
religious and moral matters.
Those of us who make a whole-hearted effort to keep “the right ways of the
Lord” before the people are often charged with being narrow-minded legalists.
Whenever we attempt to inform people of the need to change their thinking or
conduct in order to be pleasing to God, we, much like the prophets of old, are
labeled as being “insensitive” and “uncaring”. One day I’m certain many will
realize that our calls for repentance and conversion were not so “insensitive”
after all. I’m afraid, however, when that time comes it will be everlastingly too
late. For now, the only thing preachers and teachers of the gospel can do is to
“persuade men” to heed God’s warnings (II Cor. 5:10-11), which certainly
demands a great deal of frankness.
We often have the propensity to think that we are looking out for the best
interest of someone else by sparing their feelings and “living and letting live”.
Unfortunately, many precarious and at times life-threatening problems have
arisen because of this appealing, though misguided philosophy. For instance, the
homosexual lifestyle and sexual promiscuity has inevitably led to numerous viral
and bacterial infections that can result in sterility, cancer, or even death. Surveys
indicate that at least 43% of homosexuals have had sex with at least five hundred
partners, and 28% have confessed to having sex with a thousand or more!
Accordingly, more and more people are becoming susceptible to HIV and other
sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, an estimated 20,000 people between the
ages of 13 and 24 are infected with HIV each year in the U.S. As for the health
risks associated with these sinful lifestyles, Dr. John R. Diggs, an expert on AIDS
and other STDs, observes:
“All told, the physical and medical risks associated with homosexuality make it
imperative that we discourage rather than encourage teens to start down a path
towards this life-shortening behavior. This contradicts the medical dictim,
primum non nocere – first, do no harm – and is sure to lead to more damaged
teens rather than ‘safer’ schools”.
If we, knowing these statistics, and knowing what the Lord has said regarding
them (cf. Rom. 1:24ff; I Cor. 6:9-10), have any sense of compassion and
“sensitivity” for those who engage in these practices, we will be as “frank” as
possible in trying to demonstrate the heinousness of this vice – not deem it
merely as an “alternative lifestyle”. The same is true with regard to any sinful
activity.
Friends, allow me to be frank with respect to one other matter. While we do
need to be “frank” about sin and the consequences of disobedience, we
nonetheless need to be concerned about how we teach the truth, both in the
manner and the method. It is not as though we have to sacrifice “sensitivity” for
the sake of truth, nor should we abandon the need for proper tactics in our
teaching. If we desire to be “Christ-like”, we are going to be “speaking the truth in
love” (Eph. 4:15; cf. vs. 11-14). Insensitivity, or speaking truth without love, does
no one any good, and hypersensitivity, or speaking in love without truth, can only
inflict harm upon those to whom we think we are expressing that love. Indeed,
frank speaking demands a proper balance between the two.
REFERENCES
Miller, Stuart, ed., Essays and Sketches of Mark Twain, New York: Barnes &
Noble Books, 1995, pp. 356-361.
Diggs, John R., see www.massnews.com/900fist3.htm.
