A general pastoral rule of thumb is that difficult issues can be better resolved face to face, or at least over the phone. Rather than ever-lengthening replies and replies-to-replies, a direct personal mode of communication can be both more irenic and efficient. Irenic, because both parties are reminded of one another’s humanity, and when one hears the other’s tone of voice and sees their facial expression they are a little less likely to misunderstand their intentions and goodwill. Efficient, because clarifications and context can be provided straight away, avoiding painful and unnecessary sidetracks.
Social Context
But face-to-face (or voice-to-voice) isn’t always the best way to deal with a difficult matter. For one thing, culture and technology do shape social interactions and expectations. The telephone is a relatively new technology and has since been augmented with text message options, both SMS and instant messaging apps. Giving someone a call isn’t more socially or morally upright than sending a telegraph or a letter—or an SMS or voice memo for that matter. Like all technologies, it has its strengths and weaknesses.
Even the ease and frequency with which we can prioritise face-to-face communication depends on economic independence, health, transport technology and proximity to others.
Possible Escalation
Further, moving a conversation to a more direct and personal mode can, in some contexts, escalate a situation, rather than soothe it. It has the potential to raise anxiety. It might, unwittingly, be perceived as a power move, forcing a more confrontational form of interaction that might even intimidate. The ringing phone adds a need for an urgent decision (to answer the phone or not) and immediate responses during the conversation. A scheduled meeting (or planned phone call) might bring with it nervous anticipation. Traveling to meet someone on their turf can communicate that you are going out of your way for the sake of the relationship. But it might also seem like you are coming to ‘sort them out!’
Sometimes Writing Is Better
The apostle Paul reasons along these lines in the second of his New Testament letters to them:
I call God as my witness—and I stake my life on it—that it was in order to spare you that I did not return to Corinth. Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy, because it is by faith you stand firm. So I made up my mind that I would not make another painful visit to you. For if I grieve you, who is left to make me glad but you whom I have grieved? I wrote as I did, so that when I came I would not be distressed by those who should have made me rejoice. I had confidence in all of you, that you would all share my joy. For I wrote you out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you. (2 Corinthians 1:23–2:4)
Granted, the situation with the Corinthian church was at the extreme end, and Paul had a unique authority over the church as both apostle and church planter, but his decision is still one we can learn from. Choosing to write a letter delayed a visit that may have forced his hand to act in a more interventionist, disciplinary mode. The letter gave the Corinthians time to read, reflect and act on their own initiative and authority (see 1 Cor 5:1–5 and 2 Cor 2:5–11 and further 1 Cor 4:14–21 and 2 Cor 13:1–10),[1] so that Paul’s visit could have a different, gentler tone.
Sometimes, a topic is sufficiently weighty or complex that it is worth attempting to discuss it in person or over the phone. At other times it is worth considering whether its weight and complexity mean it’s best handled in writing.
[1] The practical and theological teaching in these passages can be considered together, even if they are not all talking about the same situation.
To support the ongoing work of the local team at The Gospel Coalition Australia, make a donation here.
