[Excerpt from] Chapter 43: The Ninth Commandment
Protecting Others’ Reputations
As we have seen, one of the major emphases of the ninth commandment and the confessional expositions of it is that we should not distort the truth in order to hurt a neighbor. Scripture emphasizes this concern in many contexts. Like American law, for example, it insists that when someone is accused of wrongdoing, the burden of proof is on the accuser: “innocent until proven guilty.” In the Old Testament, this burden is expressed by the requirement of “two or three witnesses.” This principle bears obviously on capital crimes (Deut. 17:6), but also on all other charges of wrongdoing:
A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. (Deut. 19:15; cf. Heb. 10:28)
Jesus incorporates this teaching into his plan for discipline within the church:
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed1 in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. (Matt. 18:15-20)
It is, of course, possible and legitimate for a Christian sometimes to ignore the sins of others, for “love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Pet. 4:8). If we made an issue of every sin that someone else commits, we would be tied up every hour in confrontation and ecclesiastical litigation. But when we see a definite need to correct the other person, either for his own good or for the good of the church, Jesus gives us the pattern for doing it. That pattern is not to talk about the sinner behind his back (gossip), but to confront him directly.12 If that confrontation doesn’t bring restoration, then the accuser is to bring “two or three witnesses” (cf. 2 Cor. 13:1, 1 Tim. 5:19). If that second confrontation fails, the accuser should pursue formal church discipline, trusting the promise of Christ’s presence (verse 20) even through this distasteful process.
But note especially here the protection of the accused: by open confrontation rather than gossip, by a burden of proof on the accuser, by many in the church participating in the process, by the presence of Christ, who judges all things rightly.
A further protection is this: Paul urges those who would confront others at the same time to confront themselves:
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. (Gal. 6:1)
One who would correct others should, as Jesus says, take the plank from his own eye before removing a speck from someone else’s (Matt. 7:3-5). One who would correct someone else should not sit on a high horse; he should set aside his pride, understanding that sin afflicts us all. Indeed, Satan uses the very process of correction to tempt the accuser to pride.
According to Gal. 6:1, harshness is another barrier to godly correction. When we are dealing with someone else’s sin, we need to ask regularly if we are approaching him gently. Gentleness is an important character trait in Scripture, and it is often compromised in the anger of confrontation.
The reputation of a person is a delicate thing, not easily restored after it is compromised. When someone accuses another of wrongs through gossip, inadequate testimony, and/or harsh confrontation, he does great harm. Note the concern that God himself has for his own great name (Ex. 32:11-14, Josh. 7:9, etc.)
I believe that this is one area where Christians today have often grieved the Lord. Many churches today have no formal church discipline, so there are no protections for those who are accused, and often the local gossip determines the outcome of a dispute. People start whispering, a negative consensus develops, and the target of the criticism leaves the church.
Further, Christians have often attacked one another with a total neglect of biblical standards of evidence. One might think that theologians, at least, would be careful to judge disputes fairly, gently, and cautiously; but in my judgment they are often the worst offenders.13 In theological controversy, writers often delight in distorting the words of one another, reading them in the worst possible (or worse than possible) sense. Many writers invoke the rhetoric of anathema and condemnation, without any adequate argument, and without any meaningful attempt to seek peace.
Such controversialists often invoke the example of Luther and Calvin in this regard. I think these Reformers were themselves too quick with insulting epithets and anathemas. But for the most part they justified these epithets with careful biblical argumentation. I do not see a similar care in many of the self-appointed modern guardians of orthodoxy. It is true, also, that the prophets, Jesus, and Paul often used strong language against their opponents. They used that strong language against oppressors of the poor, against Pharisees who burdened the people with unbiblical moral standards, and against Judaizers, who wanted to force Gentiles to become Jews before receiving the grace of God in Christ. But they were very gentle with others they disagreed with: Jesus with the woman of Samaria (John 4), Paul with Christian vegetarians and day-observers (Rom. 14). Present-day defenders of the faith often fail to make such distinctions.
Many theological controversialists today set themselves up as internet gurus, declaring brothers and sisters to be excommunicate on their say-so alone, showing contempt for the authority of the church, which alone God has authorized to make such judgments, and violating God’s standards requiring protection of the accused. Many of these have no conscience about spreading lies to anybody who will hear. It never occurs to them that they have a responsibility to protect the reputations of fellow Christians, even those they disagree with.
In part, the problem is due to the failure of church discipline in most contemporary congregations. Denominationalism has played a role in this failure (cf. Chapter 24). An accused person, or a false accuser, can easily leave one church and join another if they are threatened by discipline. Or they can express their opinions on the internet, with little or no church oversight.
It is time for Christians to recognize that this behavior is sin. It is gossip, often slander, and Christians should not support it. The church needs to wake up to the problem. Theology, especially on the internet, needs to become accountable to the body of Christ. We need to demonstrate to the world that we adhere to God’s standards of evidence, and that we deal with sin in a way that in principled, but also gentle and winsome. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Emphasis mine.]
I am dealing with Christians on the internet who do not seem to like to buy and sell in the truth. By this I mean they are quick to offer invectives of the great reformed men of history, calling them essentially Manicheans, Gnostics, pagans, etc. They doubt the salvation of men such as Augustine, Calvin, et al.
They do not even seem to have their factual information straight at times. If they were simply wrong in their assessments of things, I think it would be easy to show them where they err. But they are not only wrong, they are also proud and mockers of Calvinists (Lord forgive me if ever I mock others, especially publically), they do not study the arguments of Calvinism but promulgate the anti-Calvinistic arguments they have studied, they oft misrepresent Calvinism or in the least argue a straw-man which is not Calvinism.
In short, they want to believe what they want to believe. And how, pray tell, do you as a rhetor approach such who think in this manner?
