accused

I’ve been reading, which gets me thinking, and thinking gets me into trouble. I’ve been thinking about how quick we are, when criticised or challenged, to leap to our own defence. I suspect we’re motivated by wounded pride rather than a sense of injustice – after all, are we quite as quick to jump to the defence of another? When Jesus stood before his accusers he made no attempt to justify or acquit himself. He offered only silence, sprinkled with brief answers to questions. No “Let me explain…”; no “Let me tell you my side of the story…”; no “It was their fault!”; no outrage, shock or fury. Just silence. But is that really realistic? Isn’t this just an extreme example tied to the necessity of the crucifixion? Surely, if our name is dragged through the mud, we should make every effort to put people right? Shouldn’t we? Surely? Two quotes come to mind at this point. The Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu, who said “Those who justify themselves rarely convince.” I think he makes a good point. Or then there’s something I heard once from either Neil T. Anderson or Larry Crabb (I can’t quite recall) that goes something like this: “If you are in the wrong you have no defence, and if you are in the right you need no defence.” But does it work in so-called real life? I know someone who once was publicly accused. He sat in a group and listened to someone make all kinds of claims against him and his character. After his accuser had finished he stood up and said, “Well, you all know me, and you can decide for yourselves if those things are true or not,” before sitting down. And that was that. There was no attempt to defend himself with words, because he had years and years of integrity and actions to speak on his behalf. No doubt there were those who would find that an unsatisfactory defence – perhaps almost an admission of guilt – but I can’t help but feel that there’s no response to criticism more powerful than a godly life. Something to think about perhaps, but try not to get into too much trouble.