Don McMinn

“In every good marriage, it helps sometimes to be a little deaf. I have followed that advice assiduously, and not only at home through 56 years of a marital partnership nonpareil. I have employed it as well in every workplace, including the Supreme Court. When a thoughtless or unkind word is spoken, best tune out. Reacting in anger or annoyance will not advance one’s ability to persuade.”  –Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg [This excerpt from Ginsburg’s new book My Own Words appeared in a New York Times article.]

Your spouse, friend, colleague, or total stranger makes a silly, unnecessary, provocative, or dubious statement. It may be, at best, trivial, inaccurate, vague, or unfair; at worst, it’s tacky, wrong, even hurtful.

When is it okay to just let verbal flatulence slowly dissipate without addressing it, and when is response compulsory?

As Ginsburg advises, sometimes no response is the best response.

Granted, there are times when unwholesome words should be addressed, particularly if someone is a repeat offender. Chronic verbal abuse is inexcusable and should not go unchallenged.

So the question is: when should you ignore and when should you respond to an off-putting statement?

In the coming days, exercise the “Ginsburg-restraint.” It is a tool we all need in our relational toolbox.

There is a difference between a biblical absolute, a spiritual conviction, and a personal opinion. It’s important to know the difference and not misapply them. This chart defines the three terms and explains how they differ.

There are several ways to misapply these terms.

1. Sometimes, we call something a biblical absolute when it is not. Ex: “Christians should not drink alcohol.” There is no biblical prohibition for drinking alcohol. It may be your spiritual conviction, but it’s not a biblical absolute. We misrepresent God and confuse people when we label something as sin that the Bible doesn’t. 
2. Sometimes, we erroneously elevate a spiritual conviction to the level of biblical absolute. Ex: “You must have a daily quiet time.” This is certainly a good idea, but it’s a spiritual conviction, not a biblical absolute. Don’t suggest that God will be displeased at me if I don’t have a daily quiet time.
3. While it’s good and normal to have personal preferences, at times we may need to hold them loosely and yield to the preferences of others. We should acknowledge and accept other people’s preferences.

Consider each of these statements. Is it a biblical absolute, spiritual conviction, or personal preference?

1. Do not speak unwholesome words.
2. We should sing only hymns in church.
3. Forgive one another.
4. I like living in the country.
5. We should sing only praise choruses at church.
6. I’m going to read my Bible every morning before I go to work.
7. I would rather spend my extra money on nice clothes than a nice car.
8. It’s important for a church to have Sunday night services.
9. Be completely gentle.
10. We feel strongly that our children should attend public school.
11. Encourage one another.
12. I’m going to participate in the anti-abortion rally.
13. On my day off, I enjoy solitude.

Numbers 1,3,9 and 11 are directives from the Bible, so they are nonnegotiable. Numbers 6,10 and 12 are spiritual convictions. The remaining statements are preferences.

Know when to hold tight to your persuasions and when to hold them loosely.

In a now-famous article titled “Management Time: Who’s Got the Monkey?” (Harvard Business Review, November, 1974), authors Oncken and Wass created a clever and memorable illustration on how a person can unwittingly accept responsibility for activities that should be handled by others.

In the illustration, the “monkey” is simply the next move. It is not the problem, or the project, or the goal, or the desired result; it is the next step.

Read the three scenarios below and picture a monkey leaping from the back of the direct report, teenager, and repairman to the shoulders of the boss, mom, and homeowner. Once you visualize the long-tailed primate jumping from one person to another, you’ll never forget the illustration. Since becoming aware of this phenomenon, sometimes in conversations I can almost feel the weight of a monkey as it jumps from my back onto someone else’s or from their back to mine.

• Imagine that you’re walking toward your office when one of your direct reports approaches and says, “I’m not sure how to handle a problem we’re having on a project.” You reply, “Let me think about it and I’ll get back with you.” The monkey is now on your back.
• Imagine that your teenager approaches you and says, “Mom, I can’t find my baseball shirt.” You reply, “I may have put it in the washing machine, let me check.” The monkey is now on your back.
• Imagine that you’re having some repair work done at your house and the repairman says, “I’m not sure this repair will meet city code.” You reply, “I’ll call the city and ask.” The monkey is now on your back.

I fall into this monkey-on-my-back trap often because 1) I like to do things myself, 2) sometimes I think I can do a better job at certain things than others can, and 3) I’m a people pleaser so I’m inclined to do people’s jobs for them.

When we allow employees, children, workers, and friends to handle their own monkeys, they will grow, acquire new skills, become more responsible, and more work will get done. And we’ll have more time to do those things that only we should do and more discretionary time to enjoy life.

Here’s a copy of the article.

When Orville and Wilbur Wright finally succeeded in keeping their homemade airplane in the air for 59 seconds on December 17, 1903, they rushed a telegram to their sister in Dayton, Ohio and told her of their great accomplishment: “First sustained flight today; fifty-nine seconds. Hope to be home for Christmas.” Their sister was so excited about her brothers’ success, she rushed to the newspaper office and gave the telegram to the editor. The next morning—believe it or not—the newspaper headline stated in bold letters: “Popular Local Bicycle Merchants to Be Home for Holidays!”

We are both amused and incredulous at the editor’s oversight. How did he not notice the most important news? But we all suffer from inattentiveness. We see but don’t observe. A friend or family member demonstrates subtle pleas for help but we don’t notice. Our priorities are upside down so we focus on unimportant issues and neglect critical ones. We don’t see the forest for the trees or the trees for the forest.   

Sherlock Holmes once admonished Dr. Watson for failing to know how many steps lead up to the door of their Baker Street flat: “You have not observed, and yet you have seen.” Watson, like Holmes, had gone up and down those steps hundreds of times, but only Holmes knew that there were 17 of them. The number of steps was not Holmes’s point-–it was that Watson was on automatic pilot.

Let’s slow down and be more observant. Let’s look for the important.  In conversations, let’s pay attention to subtle innuendoes and feelings not expressed.