gossip, slander, information, and advice – part 2: implications

Earlier this week, I talked about the differences between gossip, slander, and information (and threw in a seemingly random definition for advice); today I’d like to talk about the implications of these definitions for how we should respond when we hear “news” about famous church people, particularly when that “news” involves some sort of “scandal” or “outrage.”

Here’s the thing about any public platform, whether it’s blogging, songwriting, or preaching internationally televised sermons (or anything else in the limelight): the minute you step onto that platform is the first of many minutes in which you can fall off it.  The very moment that you begin to say anything that more than 2 people, much less the entire internet (and therefore, the world) can hear – you have allowed the possibilities of public opinion (including dissent) to come into existence.

It’s easy to feel brave and bold and say exactly what you think when you’re sitting in the privacy of your own room, typing away.  But the minute you hit “publish” on that post – it’s for real.  Anyone can read it once it’s out there, and your words can (and sometimes may) be used against you.

And I imagine it’s just as easy to feel on top of the world when your ministry’s going great, and you’re in the zone, and you’re preaching away, and you know that 7000 people are going to catch the podcast tomorrow – until that moment when you say something dumb that you can’t take back because it was a live broadcast, and within 8 hours it’s all over the internet that you’re a heretic.

Now here’s what I’m not saying: I’m not saying that we should pat famous preachers on the head and tell them, “oh, that’s all right, honey – you’re human and I’m sure you didn’t mean it like that” and then walk away like nothing happened when they say dumb things.  Saying something really dumb when thousands of people are listening to you and believing every word you say (because not all of us are overly discerning) is a serious thing.

What I am saying is that we need to start by recognizing that the people we’re talking about when we talk about famous people are actual people – with hopes and dreams and hearts and feelings and insecurities and growth edges, just like us.  We need to start by not putting people on pedestals, by learning the valuable skills of thinking critically, seeking wisdom, and practicing good discernment.  And we need to start by making sure that when we talk about the stuff that hits the fan about “famous” church people, we’re doing it with the level of humility and respect that we would use in confronting someone we know.

We need to remember to be kind – while being appropriately critical.

Earlier this week I talked about some of the ways we can discern whether or not an article or a video we find online is presenting facts, gossip or slanderous accusation.  Now, let’s apply what seems to me to be common sense:

• If the article you’re reading or the video you’re watching has a malicious, gossipy, or slanderous tone – you should think twice about sharing it.
• If it’s from a source that tends to be unreliable – you should think twice about sharing it (even if you agree with its viewpoint).  
• If it’s the only thing you’ve read/watched that says what it says – you should think twice about sharing it.
• And if you’re going to share anything on social media about a scandalous issue within the Church – you should make sure you are well-informed, have your facts straight, and are ready to engage in healthy, humble, and very public conversation about it.

Because here are some facts:

• Not everything you read or see on the internet that claims to be accurate and/or “news” is actually true.
• Not everything you read or see on the internet that is true is also unbiased.
• Not everything you read or see on the internet will take a bigger picture into account (and some will take too big of a picture into account in an attempt to make things seem worse than they currently are).
• Some reporters are more committed to click-bait headlines and sensational stories than they are to communicating actual facts.
• When people’s negative emotions in response to someone are reported as evidence of wrongdoing, it’s likely you’re reading or watching a biased report.

Up until now we’ve been dealing in abstracts – and that’s been intentional on my part; I don’t want to get sucked into a conversation about any particular scandal until we’ve laid some ground rules:

• know your facts
• be humble
• remember that famous people are people too
• watch your tongue – and more importantly, check your heart

A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil.  For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. – Luke 6:45 (NKJV)

The first question you have to ask yourself when you want to like or share (or retweet or whatever) an article about anything “scandalous” is: why?

Why do you want to share it?

Church, we have got to check our hearts.  If there is even a shred of “I’m better than this” or “someone should have seen this coming” (especially if it comes with an attitude of harsh judgment or bitterness or anger) in our hearts – watch it.  This might be a time to shut up, close the laptop, and pray for the people we’re reading about – or whatever else we need to do to come to a place of better humility.  As the old saying goes, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”  We need to start and end there.

Here’s one more thing I am not saying: I am not saying we shouldn’t talk about these things.  I think we absolutely have to talk about them.

But the way we do it matters.

More on why we need to talk about the “scandals” at all in the next post.  In the meantime – I would love to hear your thoughts on all of this!  Please feel free to comment below.

photo courtesy of ©Depositphotos.com / U.P.images