Thursday, February 26, 2009

Thursday, February 5, 2009

SILENCE PROVES GUILT?

There seems to be this theme that surfaces throughout life, and it is illustrated here (at 3:59PM 2-4), here (at 6:10Pm 2-4) and here (comment #1 implies), that if one is questioned and remains silent and chooses not to answer that question, then they are indeed attributing truth to the question. Depending upon how the question is phrased, the questioneer(I made that word up) may determine that the person is guilty of a crime, knows something and is hiding it or simply is afraid to speak the truth. Indeed, we often ask questions that we really intend not to even give ear to an answer from the one asked. I think the term for those questions is rhetorical but I digress.

Does one's refusal to answer questions indicate anything positive or negative? Well, in Luke 23:9 we read, "Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing." This is the account of Herod "interrogating" Jesus. Now if anybody knows the answer, it would be Jesus. If there was ever anyone who could answer EVERY question asked of Him, Jesus is the one who could do it. And yet, Jesus remained silent. Did Jesus' silence towards Herod prove anything to Herod. Nope. Simply that Jesus did not wish to speak to Herod.

My point?...Silence is simply that...silence. It neither confirms nor denies. To build a case from silence or to argue against someone who remains silenct is a futile endeavor. For in the absence of words, we are only left with speculation and since none of us are God, we do not know really even what to speculate about the silence.

Silence is what it is. And we can contribute nothing to silence since it indeed does not speak.