How do you make decisions? Do you lean on the wisdom of trusted friends or only on yourself? What about when the advice from your trusted friends runs counter to your own opinion? What about when your own opinion runs counter to proven evidence?
Recently a friend and I were in a deep, wonderful yet challenging conversation that involved coming to grips with how decisions are made for a large group. My friend said, at one point, “When I hear you (or anyone else for that matter) say “it’s decided,” maybe you are right, and that just irritates my human sensibilities and my western upbringing to be independent.”
I agreed with the sentiment; I too want to have my own way. Often. Yet, the reality is that we so often never really know all the necessary details for decisions and typically choose to only rely on ourselves. That is a mistake.
Blogger Mike Metzger touched on this in a recent post.
“A new kind of society and, inevitably, a new kind of person” emerged, [Andrew] Potter writes, [a person] more given to looking within for meaning. An individual’s self-definition of reality filled the gap left by institutional faith, giving rise to authenticity, which comes from the Greek, authentes, meaning “one acting on one’s own authority.” “Authentic” individuals define themselves on the testimony of only three witnesses: me, myself, and I.”
The idea of only trusting my own insights and opinions sounds good and basically matched my friend’s thoughts—I only need myself and my own feelings to decide what is true, right and good. If someone declares that a decision is finalized, especially if it runs counter to what I really want, then I will declare my independence and go my own way.
We Americans only have ourselves to blame for this, though Metzger is correct that the concept comes out of the Enlightenment. As the Renaissance gave more and more power to the correct idea that the human had worth, increasingly thinkers began to take the more dangerous and incorrect path that implied that our worth made us independent of all connections—to others or even to God. In fact, as the Enlightenment ran its course, more and more thinkers took the final step of declaring either that there was no God or that they, as humans, were gods in and of themselves (sort of the same point, I realize).
Please understand that as a historian, I have long enjoyed teaching about humanism and the Renaissance, the incredible period in Western Civilization history when people began to realize that their lives had value. Most of these thinkers were actually faithful Christians, agreeing with the Bible that the human is a being of worth. No longer would some status as a mere serf or peasant actually be good enough; no longer would the idea of a noble or monarch holding all power for a civic body suffice. The problem here, though, is that relying only on myself for decisions and insight is flawed. Any reflective person will admit that they have blind spots and that often they are betrayed by their own emotions. The Bible says as much when it declares that our hearts are deceitful, and that we should work to guard our heart.
Metzger’s post took a quote from the English governmental official, a former Member of Parliament, William Wilberforce. As you may know, Wilberforce became the leading figure in the fight to end slavery. Yet, he was a devoted Christian who understood that our own minds can lead us to ruin.
The hoax is that authenticity does not take into account the human capacity for self-deception. William Wilberforce understood this, as well as why maintaining a clear conscience required self-suspicion, not self-referential takes on reality. We see this in his letter to his 15-year-old daughter Elizabeth, in which he writes:
I must declare to you… that it will be necessary for my dear girl to guard herself with the utmost watchfulness, and… what St. Paul terms “exercising herself to maintain a conscience void of offence towards God and towards man”: what the Book of Proverbs styles, “keeping the heart with all diligence:” for unless we have accustomed ourselves to self-suspicion, we never benefit as we might from the friendly reproofs of a real friend.”
How do you make your decisions? How do you handle situations where “the decision has been made” and you don’t like the conclusion? Here are some thoughts to ponder:
- focus on doing as Wilberforce suggests, holding “ourselves to self-suspicion.”
- look to wise counsel as you search for solutions
- make sure the “wise counsel” actually matches your own faith position—so, if you are a Christian, then your plan should match what the Bible says.
- remember the wonderful proverb that says “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy,” so be cautious to not get angry or defensive when a friend challenges your position about a decision.