Billy can dish it out, but he can’t take it.
He’ll object to Larry’s church doctrine, citing particulars with which Larry is unfamiliar and challenging and questioning Larry’s position. And he looks down on Larry’s ignorance and his unwillingness to study the things he says he believes.
But then Billy states his own position somewhere or other, and someone questions him on the particulars. And when Billy answers, the unsupported assumptions that are apparent in his answers are questioned. And then he gets mad, as if he’s being unfairly interrogated by some ill-willed person—as if the questions couldn’t possibly be in good faith.
Ironically, this may be exactly the way that Larry felt when Billy criticized his position. But does Billy say to himself, “Wow! I’m a mess! I couldn’t even defend thoroughly the position from which I criticize other people!”?
Nope! Rather, he tries to put the blame on the guy who asked him the hard questions. And that’s just what Larry did. They’ll use dodges like these:
- “That guy’s a jerk.”
- “He’s just trying to show off how smart he is.”
- “He’s just a troll.”
- “He’s under a powerful delusion.”
- “He must be a Basbyterian—or maybe a Luthodist!”
It is so utterly easy for them to imagine that the critic suffers from imperfection (real or imagined), and so hard to imagine that they themselves might suffer from some imperfection. And so, they can dish it out, but they can’t take it. And they’re not really as fair and impartial and reasonable as they think they are.
And who among us has never done this?
And who among us will have learned to quit doing it by the time we meet God face to face?
