Having a different personality is not a sin

(This is an excerpt from a longer letter that a wrote on a different forum.  I'm putting it here as part of my ongoing wrestling with a fuller biblical understanding of "speaking the truth in love.")

I've been thinking and writing for awhile about how I believe personality differences are not considered as they should be when judging the suitability or sinfulness of what other Christians say. This past week it's hit me even more clearly how many ways that we are tempted to use our own standards of behavior when evaluating the actions of others, going beyond what Scripture says to make proclamations on what should be issues of conscience.

Most of the time, I've brought this up in regards to how people who would be seen as polite, or gentle, or socially adept may condemn the brusque, unpolished person, because they think "I would have to be sinning if I said/did what you did, so you were sinning to say/do it." I'm convinced that line of thinking is unbiblical and wrong. However, it's very common, especially in a culture that idolizes a concept of tolerance defined by a lack of conflict. This sort of sin is even more pernicious for its general acclamation as a virtue. And personally, it's something that I expect I'll continue to trip over myself for the rest of my life.

Of course, there is a point at which the judgement transcends issues of conscience or personality. Sexually explicit coarse talking in church (to load the deck) is counter to Scripture even if the speaker finds nothing wrong in speaking that way. I'm not saying the line doesn't exist, only that it's often not as clear (or as close) as many proud of their civility think it is.

What is the answer, for those of us (for I am one) who are tempted to not say something at all, or to avoid speaking in a blunt or confrontational way when, objectively speaking, they should?

I don't think it's to tell them "It doesn't matter how you feel about it, do it anyway." I haven't completely thought through issues of conscience, but I'm with Luther, that acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. We don't strengthen the weaker brother by encouraging him to do otherwise. But Luther's comments contain the proper course. His context is a conscience captive to the Word of God. If someone has a improper or incomplete understanding of the Word, then the solution is not to remove his conscience from its rule, but to strengthen its submission to a right understanding of what Scripture does and does not say.

The exact same issue and solution holds true for the other end of the personality spectrum, those people who are more pugnacious or who see open, direct conflict as a surer way to the truth. After all, cauterizing a wound may bring immediate pain, but it speeds healing.  In my opinion, such people can fall victim to the judgement than any gentler approach (in phrasing, or private meeting, and so forth) is useless, or perhaps even dishonest, because "that's how I'd feel if I acted that way." Action with which one disagrees is not necessarily inaction.

I want to be clear: The greater problem, at least in our culture, lies on the side of the placaters. That is certainly my own temptation. But of course that doesn't excuse it when it appears on the other side of the ledger. Sin is always a unilateral activity.