Yes and No

 

Seeing all sides of the issues and not over simplifying

12/16/2025

Matthew 21:28-32 Jesus said to the chief priests and the elders of the people: “What is your opinion?  A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’ The son said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went. The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go. Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the Kingdom of God before you. When John came to you in the way of righteousness, you did not believe him; but tax collectors and prostitutes did. Yet even when you saw that, you did not later change your minds and believe him.”

In the 12th century Peter Abelard popularized a medieval method of logical reasoning with his book “Sic et Non”, Latin for “Yes and No.” Abelard taught philosophy in Paris and wanted his students to probe more deeply into important topics that did not admit of simple yes OR no answers but were better answered by yes AND no responses. That is, he wanted his students to catch shades and degrees of meaning, and that answers to questions are not simply yes OR no, but in fact yes AND no.

Let me give you a few of his statements and see how you might answer them, and they are not as simple as “Will Indiana beat Ohio State again in the national championship?” (1) Must human faith be completed by reason, or not? (2) Does faith only deal with unseen things, or not? (3) May one believe only in God, or not? (4) Is God a single unitary being, or not? Now, since the title of the book is Sic et Non, we know what the correct answer is. What is left is to logically reason why the answer is both yes and no.

Well, Peter Abelard would have been very happy to read today’s gospel where the correct answer is both yes and no. When a man asks his two sons to go to work in the vineyard, the first says “I will not,” but in fact goes. The second responds, “Yes sir!” but fails to act. Then, Jesus asks: “Which of the two did his father’s will?” And the chief priests and elders (like you and I) answered, “The first.”

Jesus’ real point, like Abelard’s, was to help his interlocutors probe deeper into true obedience versus mere lip service. He wanted them to do some sincere self-examination, namely, the chief priests and elders words were right and good - they said "Yes" - but their actions failed to follow through.

Whereas the tax-collections and prostitutes’ actions were better when they repented, although their original words offended God, in effect saying, “No” to his will. In other words, when we examine things simply and only on the surface, things appear black OR white, yes OR no. But on closer inspection, the correct answer is more complex and more accurate, namely, yes AND no.

Did I ever tell you about the professor at the University of Dallas that I both hated AND loved? He taught us Russian literature like Dostoyevsky’s “Crime and Punishment.” We had to read a chapter or two and discuss it in class. But he never gave us the correct answer (or any answer) on how to interpret the classic. Instead, he asked: “Why did Raskolnikov kill his land lady?” “Why did Sonia not give up on loving Raskolnikov?” “Why didn’t Porfiry immediately arrest Raskolnikov?”

I hated that class because I felt we wasted tons of time listening to students spout off inane answers; whereas my professor could have given us the correct answer in a few seconds. But he was teaching us to think harder, to analyze characters, to perceive the plot and the narrative arc. Now, when I read a book or watch a movie, I constantly ask: “Why is he doing that?” “What is the point of the plot?” “Who are the main protagonist and antagonist?” In short, I had learned to think for myself instead of being spoon-fed like a baby.

My friends, as you go through your day, be aware of the temptation to see life in overly simplistic terms: Yes OR no, black OR white, conservative OR liberal, Republicans OR Democrats, the United States OR Russia, tennis OR pickleball. Well, actually pickleball is really from the devil and should be outlawed. In other words, life is rarely (if ever) that simple or straight-forward. And the desire for that simplistic view reflects an adolescent state of mind.

Rather, try to see the truth on both sides of the aisle and appreciate all perspectives. I advise engaged couples preparing for marriage: you will not agree on every issue but at least try to respect the other person’s opinion. The worst thing you can say is, “Well, that’s stupid.” Sadly – at the other end of the narrative arc of marriage – when people divorce, one person usually paints the other as the villain and themselves as the victim.

But rare is the ex-spouse who can humbly say: “Yes, he had his faults, but I contributed to the failure of our marriage, too.” There is great hope that person’s next marriage will be more successful. Why? Because they have learned that life is a lot less “yes or no” and a lot more “yes and no.”

Praised be Jesus Christ!