I was struck last year, as I worked to understand mercy better, by the difference between mercy and kindness.
If I had not focused on meekness earlier in the year, when I defined meekness and where I discussed being gentler with the ones we love, I probably would have defined mercy in terms of being kind. However, as I thought about it, it hit me that “mercy” is more than being kind and gentle – in a very important and fundamental way that has direct relevance to blogging.
Meekness includes gentleness and benevolence – which includes kindly generosity. Being meek means reacting with kindness – by being gentle in our response to others. For example, meekness is the central concept in Proverbs 15:1 – where it says, “A soft answer turneth away wrath.” In other words, meekness comes into play whenever something needs to be done or said – by mitigating the harshness that naturally would accompany a “rebuke” and helping us “say it as gently as possible”.
Mercy, on the other hand, encompasses “soft answers” (since they do not “inflict harm” to the same degree as “hard answers”), but it goes beyond meekness in that it often requires us to give no answer at all – to inflict no harm, even to the more minor degree that a meek response would cause. It requires us to “turn the other cheek” – an act of full mercy (not striking back although “justified”) NOT merely meekness, as I have assumed previously. In this way, someone can be meek (gentle and kind) without being merciful (fully non-judgmental and understanding and forgiving), but it is impossible to be merciful without being meek.
Let me use one example from the life of Jesus to illustrate this point – and to show that meekness and mercy are not required always of a righteous judge. When Jesus cleared the temple, He was neither meek nor merciful. He acted forcefully and dispensed justice energetically. He was able to do so “righteously” for two reasons:
1) As the designated God of this creation (the divine representative of the Father), He had authority over the temple which had been built as His house. He was the “Master of the House” in the fullest sense. He had the right to enforce rules for what happened inside that house. (For an interesting discussion of this in our own world, see You Make the Call: Holiday Party Edition.)
2) As the Eternal Judge, he had the authority to administer justice – literally to choose whatever action was “correct” for that situation. He could see the big picture and “judge righteous judgment“.
There are times, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost, that we may act legitimately with neither meekness nor mercy – when we may “reprove betimes (occasionally) with sharpness (precision)” – since these instances explicitly are directed by a member of the Godhead. All other times, when we are not acting through direct communication from deity, we are told to be either merely meek or truly merciful – by inflicting as little harm as possible through gentleness and kindness or no harm at all through mercy. That is a fine line that must be drawn, I believe, in each and every instance – which is one reason why the Gift of the Holy Ghost is so critical to our progression and growth.
What are the implications of this concept for Mormon Matters? How does this applty to the way we intereact with each other in this sort of on-line community? How does the attainment of this objective vary in this type of setting from one in which we interact face-to-face? Are there downsides to meekness and mercy here and, if so, what are they? How can we balance this directive with the desire (or occasional need) to defend and correct – or act as an administrator and moderator?
