When we write articles and blogposts which produce questions and encourage thought, it only follows that people will misconstrue our words to fit their own train of thought, idea or viewpoint. It's just the way things go in the writing world--especially blogging.
Most writers know, without a shadow of doubt, that someone somewhere will be doing surgery on their words. A good writer knows it's inevitable and makes every effort to address the questions before they're even asked...to cover possible arguments before they're ever considered. Many writers take excruciating pains to word their posts, thinking through various ways an illustration might be taken or argued. Even though a writer should have reasonable expectation to be taken for what they say in a piece, they need to know their expectations are more like a wish than a reality.
That never happened with Jesus. He knew exactly what He was saying and He didn't give a fig's leaf of thought to whether He'd be misunderstood. He knew exactly who would understand Him and who would not. He knew His mind, His heart, His motives with every word He spoke. He was God and man, susceptible to the flesh--yet sinless, pure and holy. Not so with man...when we speak, or write, we can only hope that folks will "get" our point. We hold reasonable expectations that they'll read what we are saying. Writers write, ever mindful that another can misinterpret the substance and the purpose of what they write. Unlike Jesus, we may question our own words at times...we know we are not infallible. We know we are not always pure in thought. We may have the best of intentions but still fail in our desire to succinctly relate our thoughts to others. Even the most prolific writers have unrelenting critics who read standing sideways on a cliff of understanding and discernment. People read with their own slant and bias, often overlooking critical points when analyzing.
I call that the flaw of communication. Perhaps it's an unwritten law of human nature?
Folks just tend to jump to particular conclusions. They tend to hammer out a particular sentence or word, to make it fit an argument they want to make or interpretation they prefer. They weigh in and judge a writer's words by presumed intent rather than content. Happens about every time I read a blog. Some commenter, or several, take the op to levels it never intended to go, to extremes it never meant to imply. They twist it into something it does not say, nor ever will say--no matter how many blog-posts are written to analyze it. Quite often, when the author re-explains his/her rationale and point, commenters and critics respond with retaliatory remarks dripping of condescension, accusation, and repudiation.
That can be hurtful--to the writer. However, it can be the least of damage done by a reader.
The worst happens when a sliver of what one writes or says is delivered to another group of readers or listeners--a group which is all too eager to rip another's words into snippets and reduce it to one-liners and soundbites far from the point of a writer's original words. It reminds me of when I toss a leftover hambone to my daughter's three canines. They each tear into it, growling and running away with choice chunks to devour. None of them know the delight of sitting down with the family and conversing over dinner with all the trimmings of mashed potatoes, corn-on-the-cob, and bacon-flavored green beans. They're satisfied with a ragged edge of gristle, fat and marrow. Such is the flaw of communication: folks who do not desire to discuss ideas, or consider inevitabilities--but have fore-drawn conclusions and myopic patterns of discourse.
It's a wonder we communicate at all. selahV
