08.01.09 The 3rd Key for Evaluating a Prospective Partner's Intellectual Maturity

3. Does the Person Choose the ‘Truth’ Even When it Challenges What She or He Would Prefer to Believe?

Observe how the prospective partner responds when facts do not match expectations. Does the person examine the information carefully and respond to what is actually true; or does she or he accept explanations that feel reassuring without verifying whether they are accurate?

Priscilla and Aquila must have recognised how each of them was serious about conveying the truth of God’s Word; and their insistence on accuracy irrespective of what hearers thought. Both of them must have been bothered or disturbed by the incompleteness in Apollos’ teaching. Maybe at face value, Apollos could have appeared as an experienced Man of God who had a full grasp of the doctrine he was passing on to his congregation. He could have formed an impression that he was grounded in the teachings he was sharing with the people. Although Apollos spoke with confidence and eloquence, the couple did not allow his persuasive and probably charismatic delivery to replace true doctrine. Priscilla and Aquila were prompted to beyond that façade and make a candid but constructive evaluation of the preacher's messages, then convey the truth of ‘God's way' to him, not minding whether they Apollos could regard that as ‘interfering with his ministry’ (Acts 18:26). Accuracy mattered more to them than leaving the issue unresolved (Acts 18:26).

The mosquito net scandal later revealed a different pattern in Jonathan. Missing inventory, weak verification and inconsistent reporting were repeatedly explained away rather than examined carefully. Instead of checking the facts, he accepted explanations that sounded reassuring. By ignoring the evidence, he allowed the situation to deteriorate until the problem became public.

A partner with intellectual maturity is willing to examine facts carefully and respond to them honestly. Such a person does not rely on reassuring explanations when evidence suggests otherwise. By facing reality directly and adjusting decisions accordingly, the person protects both the relationship and the responsibilities entrusted to them.