Skip to main content

No, Positive Affirmations Do Not Imply a Denial of the Inverse or Opposite Ideas

Ahem.

Why does it seem like every time someone posts a positive affirmation on Facebook, 85,000 people feel the need to defend the inverse or opposite position, as if the positive affirmation necessarily acts as a denial of it?  Allow me to give you an example:

Positive affirmation:
"I like coffee with milk in it."

Comment section:
"Why don't you like coffee with sugar in it?"
"Why don't you like tea?"
"I like coffee and tea and, therefore, I am a much more complete human being than you!"

And, of course, let's not forget about this gem:
"I'm only here for the comments." (extra points for a Michael Jackson meme inserted)

Now, I don't like coffee, but that's not the point.  The point is that the positive affirmation does not necessarily imply any of the ideas rejected by the comments.  Perhaps the person posting about their coffee also likes tea.  Perhaps he (or she--let's not be sexist here) drinks his (see previous parentheses) coffee in many different ways, but for some reason had a special urge to inform people on this particular day that he enjoys it with milk in it.  Maybe he is recovering from lactose intolerance and wants to share his victory with the world.  Who cares?  The point is, making the positive statement about what he likes doesn't necessarily imply that he dislikes the opposite.  Now, sometimes that may be the intention of the declaration, but that is not necessarily the case.

Allow me to share a more realistic example.

Positive affirmation:
"Never confuse a love for theology with a love for God."

Comment section:
"Theology is important!"
"Read more books!"
"Burn the heretic!"
"I read books and love God!  I'm extra holy!"

The affirmation is something I actually posted a couple of days, while the comments are caricatures of the responses I received.  For some odd reason people assumed that I was saying 10 other things besides the thing that I actually said.  For some reason people are unable a) to judge people based on what they are actually saying; or b) to scroll past a statement that might be incomplete without challenging it.  I'm as guilty of this as the next man.  You read a post that says something that you find slightly incorrect, so you drop the hammer.  "Well, that's true," you think, "but don't forget about [fill in the blank]!"  What ends up happening is that people who are in relative (or sometimes even total) agreement end up arguing on the Internet for no reason.

There are probably a hundred reasons why we do this, but I think I've identified two of them.  The first  is that we all want our opinion to be heard, whether or not we have any right to share it. We have this uncontrollable urge to tell people what we think even when we don't know them and/or are totally ignorant.  There have always been people like that.  They always tell you how to wear your hair, how to dress your kids, what to eat, etc.  The Internet, however, has brought out this recessive gene in people who would never volunteer their opinions in real life.

The second reason, I believe, is that we feel guilty for something we have or have not done, and the post is convicting us.  We have a tendency to jump down people's throats when they say things that make us feel guilty for the way we are living our lives.  It's called a guilty conscience.  We constantly defensive, ready to make sure people know we're not doing something wrong.

A third reason might be misplaced-but-well-intentioned zeal, but this probably isn't as common as we'd like to think.

Whatever the reason might be, we should stop.  Basically what I'm trying to say is that the positive affirmations that I make do not imply that I disagree with the opposite or inverse ideas.  You may scroll past my post casually without commenting because, rest assured, I'm probably not denying any basic tenet of Christianity.  You're allowed to disregard my status.  Honest.  If you want to comment, go ahead.  I welcome the discussion.  Just be aware that I was probably just trying to emphasize a certain point and we probably already agree with each other.

Thanks.

That is all.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...