What Does it Mean to Speak the Truth in Love

[box]RVWD is my abbreviation for Religious Vocabulary Word of the Day. (You can read my introduction to the RVWD series here.) I do not intend for these word investigations to be exhaustive, but I hope they stimulate some thinking about assumptions. Possibly they will help with honest evaluations about what is truth and what is unnecessary baggage in life. [/box]
There are some interesting ideas about what it means to speak the truth in love. Some people would claim that if what we say isn’t deemed kind by the person we are speaking to, we have missed the mark. Along the same way of thinking, is that tone of voice and all vocabulary must be low-key and non-confrontational. Others would say that as long as needed perspective is being spoken, it doesn’t matter what the other person thinks. It can be used as an excuse to lord it over others in an authoritarian way.
The phrase comes from a section in the letter to the Ephesians that Paul wrote. He is in the middle of advising Christians in Ephesus that not only should they show humility, but they should not be “tossed around” by every new teaching that is marketed. In fact, the concept of speaking the truth in love is brought up as a way to deal with these tricky and deceitful teachings that would like to mislead anyone about the truth of following Christ. I get a picture of humble strength.
It is worth noting that this is the same Paul who got frustrated with the people who were claiming legalistic ritual was necessary for Christians, and wrote that they might as well completely “mutilate” themselves. (Galatians 5:12) Not the most loving sounding words, by some standards, but he was trying to make an important point about freedom. It was strangely not about following religious rules, but being free of them and not trying to tangle (I’m really liking the word tangle these days) other people up in them.
If we look at how Jesus spoke to people, we see a wide range of approaches, many of them cutting to the heart of matters in uncomfortable ways, exposing righteous posturing and superior attitudes. He had the advantage of being an expert at knowing people’s attitudes, so he could do this with complete accuracy. He also showed gentleness at times when others, particularly self-proclaimed religious leaders, thought he should have been more “firm.”
Some friends and I were recently reading about Stephen in the part of the Bible titled Acts chapters 6 and 7, when we became interested in comparing this idea with how Stephen spoke. It is made very clear, from beginning (Acts 6:15) to end (Acts 7:55), that Stephen is being directed by God. Yet, during his speech he accuses his listeners of being murderers, hard hearted, and resisting truth. In words of their culture, he described them in some of the worst ways possible, basically pointing out to them that they were not at all the religious paragons they were acting like. They were the opposite.
But while he spoke forcefully, there is good reason to believe that he did not speak hatred or anger. As they killed him, he prayed for their forgiveness. This is evidence that it was all about them, not his need to set them straight or defend his stance. He already knew the truth. He was confident about it. They needed to understand the truth before they could accept the solution.
Tragically, the truth often makes people mad. The response is often to kill or punish those who speak truth. Judging by Stephen’s  story, an angry or violent reaction is not to be automatically counted as due to the fault of the truth-speaker. This is one reason I question the common assumption that Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery because his was a self-righteous twirp.
When my children were young, I had a guideline for them. I recognized that sometimes things might go on that I wouldn’t see, with 7 children running around, and that it might be best if I knew about some of it. I considered the age-old maxim of not allowing tattling on siblings and presented it to them this way: If they saw something they were truly concerned about, please come and tell me. But if I sensed the slightest bit of satisfaction on their part that the other person was getting in trouble, they would also be subject to appropriate training, along the same degree of what was necessary for the sibling they were telling me about. They understood immediately. The care that they took when presenting me with information was inspiring. I could tell they were really thinking about what was best for their siblings. Reports were not very common and it led to a lot more effort on their parts toward getting along.
I think that is an example of what it means to speak the truth in love. It goes along with some of the discussion in my post about righteous indignation. No one should speak the truth with the motive (or satisfaction) of degrading someone like a bully would. It shouldn’t be prompted by a need to validate our own position. But it also shouldn’t be avoided with the supposed goal of not offending people. Speaking the truth in love should be done with the goal of saving people from harmful things and leading them to freedom in Christ. It is not about putting them in bondage to religious authorities. Any “putting them in their place” that might become necessary is with the goal of them finding the place of joy in truth.