Stephen M.R. Covey makes an insightful statement about human nature. “We tend to judge ourselves by our intent; we tend to judge others by their behavior.”* The tendency is to create two standards by which we operate: how we view ourselves versus how we view other people. We give ourselves the grace for our actions, but refuse that same grace to others. In doing so, we view ourselves through the mercy of God’s eyes, but often view others through condemnation of Judgement Day. The result is that we often paint ourselves with beautiful colors while painting others in something blah.
Covey is right, “We tend to judge ourselves by our intent; we tend to judge others by their behavior.”
On a return trip from vacation Covey’s parents, Stephen and Sandra Covey, were exhausted after a day of snowmobiling. Stephen was sleeping in the back seat while Sandra was driving, until she couldn’t keep her eyes open. She pulled over on a highway cutting through the vast plains of Idaho and woke her husband up so he could drive. In the process of trading places, Stephen drove off leaving his wife on the side of the road, standing in the cold air and wind.
Here is where we start reading between the lines. We know he drove off and left her behind, but so far we don’t know the why. At first, Sandra believed her husband was joking and thinking he would come back to get her. She did know something of his character. A witness to the event called the highway patrol telling them that a man had abandoned his wife on the highway. Note the word, “abandoned.” When the officer arrived, he questioned Sandra, probing for any domestic violence in their relationship, until he realized that her husband was the author and speaker of Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. He changed his tone. Once the officer was able to make contact with Stephen, Stephen denied the accusation, believing his wife was with him in the back seat of the car. Once his “truth” was exposed, he was shocked that he left her behind, saying, “I didn’t mean to leave her.”
We live within the tension between “intent” and “behavior.” Sandra, based on what she knew about her husband, thought he was joking as he pulled out to leave her on the side of the road. At first she thought it was a joke. The concerned citizen who witnessed Stephen leave his wife on the side of the road, assumed that they had had a fight and that he had abandoned her. He thought Covey was a dead-beat husband. The officer, based on the phone dispatch information, concluded that he was walking into a domestic violence situation, only to discover a totally different scenario once realizing who was involved. Stephen Covey himself denied his wife was left behind as he defended his actions, maintaining she was still in the car. Once the truth was known, Stephen played the “intent” card: “I didn’t mean to drive off leaving her on the side of the highway.” A very true statement, he did not intend to leave her on the side of the highway.
“We tend to judge ourselves by our intent; we tend to judge others by their behavior.”
I once attended a seminar on listening skills. Attendees learned to become better listeners as the director led them to develop multiple skills. It’s one thing to hear something, but it’s something totally different to peel back the layers in order to comprehend what people are saying. Those skills were not only keys to understanding people, but also deployed to help defuse volatile situations.
One of the skills was to distinguish between intent and behavior. When something happens, it is so easy to interpret behavior through the eyes of intent, especially when you lack all the necessary information. For instance, someone cuts in line, but you don’t know the intent, all you have is the behavior. Cutting in line is behavior. Why the person cut in line is intent, something we cannot know until further investigation is completed. Did the person know where the line was and inadvertently moved toward the front? (Confession time: I’ve done that at Kroger’s.) Is the person a natural cheater? Did someone save a spot in line for them? Is the person disoriented? Is the person mean spirited? Identifying behavior is easy, while the difficulty is to peg the intent. It doesn’t stop us from trying, though, does it?
Remember, “We tend to judge ourselves by our intent; we tend to judge others by their behavior.”
In my early days of ministry I worked with teenagers. A document of mine was somewhere on the secretary’s desk, a document I needed. I called the secretary who told me that it was on her desk, and just look for it. I did, and as I was looking through her desk someone walked into the office. We small talked as I continued to search. He said nothing, at least to me. Instead, he went to the church board and leveled a complaint accusing me of pilfering through the secretary’s desk. I was going through her desk, but I was looking for my document that I needed, not to mention, I had her permission. The gentleman, and the board who questioned me, noted my behavior and assigned intent to my behavior. I was falsely accused of unlawfully searching the secretary’s desk. Right or wrong has little bearing. It’s common practice to assign intent to behavior.
“We tend to judge ourselves by our intent; we tend to judge others by their behavior.”
The apostle Paul was a victim of negative intent being assigned to his behavior. At the end of 1 Corinthians he promised to visit Corinth in the near future. Writing from Ephesus, he says that he planned to go to Macedonia first and then to Corinth, even hoping to stay for a while (1 Cor. 16:5). But something happened. Plans changed and then unraveled. Paul then saw an opportunity where he could make two visits to Corinth instead of one (2 Cor. 1:15-16). Banking on his relationship with the Corinthians, he altered his plans, believing that they would understand.
Instead, his credibility took a hit. Granted, the outside influences seized on the moment and exploited Paul against the Corinthians. They took his cancelled plans and read into it a negative connotation.
They made him out to be a liar, untrustworthy with either their trust or with the gospel. I can hear their slanderous argument, “If Paul was going to lie about his travel plans, what else would he lie about?” To make matters worse, Paul did take an emergency trip to Corinth which exasperated the situation and caused great pain, both to the church and to himself personally. Essentially, Paul was run out of town on a rail (2 Cor. 2:1).
Pushed into a corner, Paul had to defend his actions of changing his plans. Yes, he believed two visits were better than one. But now his character and calling were called into question. So Paul laid out his defense in two ways. First, he defended his reason to change plans. He was not flippant in his itinerary when he says, “When I planned this, did I do it lightly? Or do I make my plans in a worldly manner, so that in the same breath I say, ‘Yes, yes’ and ‘No, no’?” (1:17). Paul gave great thought to making his plans. But for all the careful details attended to, even the apostle cannot control all that life throws at you. His schedule had to be altered and he hoped the Corinthians might understand. They didn’t, but he still hoped they would.
Secondly, he defended his credibility. The Corinthians’ needed to know that they can trust Paul’s word, both in the promises he makes and in the message he preaches (1:18). Paul links his credibility with God who makes good on his promises. Since God follows through with his promises, Paul will do the same. As Paul described, God’s promises are always “Yes,” and never “No.” The Corinthians can trust Paul’s word – both promises and message – because Paul’s credibility is like a straight arrow headed to the center of the target.
On a side note, linking himself to God’s character is a tall order. Not enough preachers have the credibility to back up the talk with the walk. Paul did. Much of 2 Corinthians is an apologetic to Paul’s character.
With Paul placed in a relational bind with this church community, he could have put up walls, become defensive, or even tried gas-lighting the Corinthians. He didn’t. Instead, he clarified his change of plans and rooted his character in God. Maybe, just maybe, because “we tend to judge ourselves by our intent; we tend to judge others by their behavior.”
Jesus talks about being as wise as serpents and innocent as doves. I’ve grappled with what that means for most of my adult life. I do know that when we sit in our IDG (Inner Disciplinary Group) meetings we struggle to assess patients and their caregivers often questionable, if not erratic, behavior. In those cases we cannot afford to be blind as lives and legality are at stake. We must be wise as serpents since we step into potential intent-moments on the patient or their family because we are dealing with potent medications and Federal liabilities. On the other hand, in our relationships with each other it’s so easy to judge people by their actions, but to excuse our own behavior by focusing on intent. Therein lies the struggle as “we tend to judge ourselves by our intent; we tend to judge others by their behavior.”
Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e., only God is glorified!)
*Stephen M.R. Covey, The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything (2006).