It has been said and often repeated that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. The reason is simple… warfare, like any conflict, requires adaptability and realization of constantly changing circumstances. While war is at the extreme of all conflict, it is by no means dissimilar in nature from other forms.

It is for this reason that absolutism is such a poor means of communication and conflict management. It doesn’t adapt well.  This shouldn’t be misinterpreted. I personally believe in absolute truths. Too often people want to see a shade of gray as cloudy cover for what they should know is contrary to simple wisdom and good sense.   In this case, I speak of absolutism as the polarization of a position or argument by assuming a position of righteousness wherein we presume to be the sole arbiter of truth and right. Instead, we should take a position based upon our own prudence of what we believe is right rather than to simply proclaim ourselves as right to stymie discussion and debate.

In the sports world, NASCAR recently suspended driver Jeremy Mayfield because of a failed drug test, and Mayfield has subsequently taken his denial of the claim to court. Prudence justified both the testing program, as well as the suspension when the driver’s judgment and clarity were in question. However, NASCAR’s dismissal of any possibility of error in the testing, and therefore refusal of any discussion that might have led to discovery of an error, led Mayfield to his only remaining option—a court of law that has since allowed him a temporary injunction to resume racing.

Because of NASCAR’s absolutist stance, the court took one, too—that the law provides that there is greater harm to Mayfield than to NASCAR in the suspension, and that the law is clear that he must be allowed back behind the wheel of a car at 190 MPH. If the absolute truth is that Mayfield did use methamphetamine, as accused, then NASCAR’s position is correct. If the absolute truth is that he did not, then the court was right to protect his legal interests and livelihood even in the face of such a serious accusation. But what absolute truth will be proven, or can it be at this point?

Such often proves to be an unwinnable situation for either side. Neither side can back off of their absolute stance. The more time passes, the more unlikely it is that absolute truth can be proven. Even so, other facts will likely come to light. As such, both sides are likely to be regarded as losers in some aspect of the eventual result.

Even as you seek to speak to your own convictions, remember that prudence may be more compelling to others rather than a statement of judgment and righteousness. Prudence adapts to changing of circumstances and allows for truth-seeking and compromise. Absolutism may only be proven, often too late to be meaningful; disproven, to chagrin and loss of credibility; or more often, simply left permanently in question as man does not have the ability or insight to answer all things.

The simple advantage of prudence is that we do not always have to be right; we must only seek to do what is right.

Jared A. Chambers