One Nation or the Divide

Standard

“See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.”

(Malachi 4:5-6 NIV)

That end to the Old Testament has intrigued me.  It contains a very clear either/or option.  Either the people heed the message of Elijah or the land will be totally destroyed.  God desired all to be saved, to be united in love for each other, and yet also doesn’t force the relationship and eventually the opportunity for reconciliation will end.

This is how John the Baptist was introduced in the New Testament:

He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

(Luke 1:16‭-‬17 NIV)

Very aspirational. 

Unfortunately, we see how this would eventually work out for the nation, as a whole, of those who didn’t repent or turn from their religious elitism.  We see it in the following pronouncement of Jesus:

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to turn “ ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother,  a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

(Matthew 10:34‭-‬36 NIV)

Many picked or else. 

They choose their own destruction rather than heed the message and accept the offer of repentance and life. 

I’m convinced it didn’t need to be that way, that had the people accepted their Lord and Savior, the city of Jerusalem would’ve stood and would not have been destroyed by the Romans.  It was political division, the insanity of the zealots (including Judas) pursuing their own version of social justice, the complacent ruling class unable to make up their minds, that ultimately doomed the city to destruction.

Jesus is uniting or divisive.  The choice is ours.  Like it or not, the Gospel lays out a choice between unity or division.  The truth will set you free or you’ll stay in bondage to your sin, to your preferences, your prejudices and perish.  If we would truly choose Jesus then we would let go of all of our other identities, grievances and special privileges, we would be united in love. 

Many who profess Christ today are more like those who rejected him.  They choose tribe over unity, they choose political gain over peace, they accuse others while being as guilty or more guilty themselves.  We would be wise to do as Jesus told his disciples regarding those who refuse to hear, to kick the dust from our sandals and move on to those more receptive.

Peace Through Separation 

This theme of peace through separation is throughout Scripture, one example being Abram and Lot:

“…quarreling arose between Abram’s herders and Lot’s. The Canaanites and Perizzites were also living in the land at that time.  So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herders and mine, for we are close relatives.  Is not the whole land before you? Let’s part company. If you go to the left, I’ll go to the right; if you go to the right, I’ll go to the left.”

(Genesis 13:7-13 NIV)

Lot picked the area close to the city, pitching his tent towards Sodom, Abram went the other way, and the strife between their clans ended.  Nobody was offended, there was no reason to be offended, seperation to avoid unnecessary conflict is a peaceable solution. 

We see the same happen in the New Testament:

Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

(Acts 15:36-41 NIV)

Imagine that.  A sharp disagreement, even within the early church, leading to a parting of ways.  And it actually seemed to work for the best.  Sometimes the best solution to an irreconcilable difference is to go different ways.  It seems that actually enhanced rather than take way from their respective ministries.  At the very least, we see this affair being stated matter of factly and not a cause for additional drama.

There is, however, at least one case of separation gone awry and that’s when Pharoah refused to let the children of Isreal go.  He had refused after first bring asked nicely, relented only after a series of plagues that increased in severity, then changed his mind once again and pursued those seeking freedom from him.  Why?  Well, because he was exploiting their labor and knew letting them go would cost him.

That is also how an abusive spouse acts.  They simply can’t tolerate someone wanting to get away from them, they’re insecure, they need to have control, and would sooner murder the other person than allow them to go in peace.  They can’t stand that someone would dare to expose their own ugliness and will slander the other party rather than repent of creating the conditions that led to the other party being uncomfortable remaining with them.

A Christian is able to walk away in peace, without things ending on their own terms, but those who are exploiting others or trying to advantage themselves cannot.  Is it better that there is no seperation?  Sure.  Is separation wrong when remaining together becomes unbearable?  Absolutely not!  In short, seperation is a peaceable solution for peaceable people.  But tyrants, who must have their own way, will refuse to leave others be.

Two Groups, Presenting an A-B Option

About six months ago, in response to the increased promotion of tribalism, I started a group on social media “One Nation Under God…”  The point was to present an alternative to these divisive forces.  A place where people of all colors, creeds, genders, or orientations could celebrate our common humanity together.  The idea being that we could act “one nation” rather than allow our differences to divide us.  I featured a picture of a diverse group of American children and posted feel-good stories of people overcoming conflicts, Good Samaritan acts, and kindness. 

Love Thy Neighbor

That group, which is representative of my highest aspirations and my desire to be unified with all, only attracted a handful of friends and remains at only a few dozen members.  I would rather that we learn to get along, to hear each other’s perspectives, to find our common humanity, and respect our differences. 

That’s definitely my option A. 

However, around the start of the new year, after a contentious election season and continuing strife, seeing some voices were not being represented, I decide (on a whim) to start a group where disenfranchised rural people could find a home.  My group description contrasted “two different Americans” and went on to note the differing cultural values between rural and urban people, with a lament of double standards, and a call for a peaceful resolution.  

The point? 

Well, on one level, it was option B, to advocate for an amicable divorce rather than continue the perpetual conflict and subjugation of one half of the country or the other every four years. 

But, on another level, it was still in hopes of option A, to make those on the ‘other side’ aware of this grievance, to hopefully find a listening ear, and then find an understanding together.  In other words, it was the same reason that any other peaceful advocacy group exists, to give some a voice in the conversation, to say our culture matters, to stop sweeping our issues under the rug, and have a dialogue.

First and foremost, the group was created as a haven for rural people, who tend to be more reserved and too often get dominated by their socially adept, politically powerful, urban counterparts.  There was no hate or contempt for those on the other side of the divide, only a listing of different cultural values, a lament of double-standards, and a call for a peaceful resolution to irreconcilable differences.  Rural people have the same desire to feel safe, to feel reasonably represented, and speak against the cultural imperialism of the truly privileged as anyone else.

Many people are fleeing urban areas to escape tyranny and violence.  And they are all welcome to live in rural areas.  But, that said, those bringing their problems with them, their tribalism and hate, are best staying where they are rather than have them bring their divisiveness to us.  Little old Asian women aren’t being physically assaulted by grown men in central Pennsylvania and some of us would rather keep it that way.  We believe in equal justice under the law, merit and not quotas, and no special treatment for some over others.

Respect our values or let us go our separate ways.  That’s all.  Option A and B.  Hear the grievance and maybe we can patch things up.  That’s always possible.  But, respond with more accusations and hate?  Yeah, that will only confirm my own reason to leave.

Pharaoh’s ‘Woke’ Army Is Outraged

I was blindsided by it.  A friend went me a private message to alert me.  The eye of Sauron had found The Rural Divide and the legions of far-left sympathizing, the hoards of apologists for wokeism and closed social justice warriors were on their way to overrun this resistance to their totalitarian agenda.  Behind the buttery smooth words, of well-trained passive-aggressive Mennonite-borns, there was seething rage—a sea of hatred, irrationality and nasty accusations

Murder in words.

Only one person reached out for an explanation.  A few others to heap condemnation and clearly unwilling to listen.  Even some old friends were unwittingly used as pawns.  But the truly disappointing part is that those who led this campaign know me enough to know that their characterization of the group was a lie.

For those who don’t know me, I was the religious odd ball at my school (as a conservative Mennonite) and found my place amongst the other misfits. One of my close friends, throughout my school years, came out of the closet in highschool and never once did I think of him as less a person than me. My cafeteria clique consisted of the only Roman Catholic and Mormon guys in the school, an ethnic Indian Hindu, a Filipino Seventh-day adventist. My other closest friend was an atheist fellow.

After school, I’ve only ever dated women categorized as “people of color” according to the current jargon. I’ve punched an openly racist Kansan (not my finest moment) and lost my job as a result. I was obsessed with the Civil Rights Era and fully embraced what Martin Luther King Jr said about content of character over color of skin. My assailants are mostly whites who grew up in ethically homogeneous enclaves, homeschooled, often privileged over me and extremely gullible too. They, like their forbearers, seem to believe that their own poop don’t stink.

So Woke.

Anyhow, back to the present drama, one particularly sanctimonious religious elite, likely trying to impress his peers with this virtue signaling display, suggested that those who joined the group were not even Christian. 

Imagine that, you get a random request for a group, decide to accept the invite to see what it is, and bam suddenly you’re out of the Kingdom.  Wow!  Yeah, I’m thinking this extremely judgmental elite confuses Christianity with cancel culture.  Or maybe it is that they are from a conservative Mennonite background where a marriage partner who separates from their abuser is often treated as the guilty party?  The apple doesn’t always fall far from the tree, does it?

I’m sure they are too ‘woke’ to carry on the prior generation’s opinions regarding abused women leaving their abusers.  And yet, under this new facade of social justice, they carry on the exact same attitude in regards to those who wish to be separated from those that routinely accuse, slander, and belittle them?

Reminds me of this:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.  And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’  So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.  Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!  “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?  Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.  And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.  Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation. “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.  Look, your house is left to you desolate.  For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’ ”

(Matthew 23:29‭-‬39 NIV)

It is interesting, first, that this passage above contains both a loving lament and harsh condemnation, both in the same thought.  This goes back to the either/or proposition of Malachi.  Second, those who killed Jesus, along with the other prophets, thought they were the enlightened and righteous ones.  Saul, who latter become St Paul, harassed, pursued and killed Christians thinking this was God’s work.  He found fault in others despite being murderous himself and it was only after repentance that he could see.

The very same people today, who are heroes in their own eyes for attacking peaceable people today, would likely be cheering loudly for Jim Crow laws a few generations ago, or aligned with Bolsheviks in Russia and Nazis in Germany before their atrocities were fully known.  It’s amazing the similarities between abusers, both then and now, rather than live and let live or leave when unwelcomed, they “pursue to town to town” and demand their piece of God’s people like the mob of degenerates in Sodom wanting a to ‘know’ Lot’s angelic visitors:

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

(Genesis 19:4‭-‬5 NIV)

The far-left is equally aggressive today in pursuit of anyone who would rather not be with them.  If you’re putoff by their nastiness they’ll accuse you of an “ism” or being “phobic” and harass and lie in an effort to have their way with you.  To them you have no rights as an individual, you belong to them, and if you refuse their advances they will  break your door down…

And those outraged about The Rural Divide acted in the same manner.  They attacked in a swarm, relentless, demanding to know why the group existed, trying to infiltrate, and were no different than that enraged mob picking up stones to murder St Stephen for his paraphrasing of what Jesus said:

“Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One.”

(Acts 7:52‭ NIV)

A Time To Reconcile, A Time To Choose A Side

If anyone in that cabal of hate and hysteria would like to approach me and apologize, I’m more than willing to forgive the slanderous attacks.  Unlike the far-left, I believe in repentance, that people should be forgiven of their faults and can change.  I’m willing to reconcile with any of those who participated in this spreading of malicious nonsense about me.  A simple apology admitting that they misunderstood or were misled into believing my group was something it was not would be sufficient enough.

There are those whom I blocked on social media for their racism or otherwise rude and elitist behavior that I would gladly welcome back into my life if there was a hint of repentance. That’s option A.

This is option B:

But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

(1 Corinthians 5:11 NIV)

St Paul prefaces this by saying that he’s not speaking against association with sinful non-Christians, who God will judge. But he’s talking about those who profess Christ and yet refuse to repent of their sin. This excommunication is necessary to maintain our own integrity and as not to confuse our non-believing neighbors. It applies, not in cases of different preferences, but in cases of clearly defined sin and lack of repentance. In case I’m unclear:

If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions.

(1 Timothy 6:3‭-‬4 NIV)

I’m sure this was just St Paul’s white cisgender male privilege speaking right?

More toxic masculinity, I suppose?

Whatever the case, if even Paul and Barnabas had to go their separate ways over a dispute, both early church missionaries and leaders, then why is it so offensive or wrong that some would rather peaceably divide rather than continue in a quarrel?  Isn’t that what happened with Abram and Lot when their groups were in conflict?  Abraham going the way of the country and Lot picking the life of the city?

In the end, it is laughable that any Protestant religious separatist, especially these proud social justice preaching types who still identify as “Anabaptist” and refuse to seek membership with the universal church, would be at all critical of those rural folks who wish to have a separate space for themselves.  Their hateful reaction confirmed every reason why The Rural Divide exists.

The Rural Divide is a group open to all shades of skin color, even those of other cultures, but only where there is mutual respect and not cultural imperialism. And, yes, the unrepentant ‘woke’ nationalists can stay out.

Relax, folks, it is just a Facebook group.

Everyone else has their safe space, wants their communities and values to be respected.

Why not the rural minorities?

Redemption In An Age Of Unjust Outrage—Should People Be Given Second Chances?

Standard

President Trump’s State of the Union address was very well received and perhaps some of the reason for that being his call for redemption. Two of the special guests had been incarcerated during the Clinton administration (when things like “mandatory minimums” and “three strikes,” often disproportionately impacting minorities, became Federal law) and have been recently given their freedom.

The first mentioned was Alice Johnson who had been convicted in 1996 for her involvement in a cocaine trafficking organization (apparently not the CIA), sentenced to life in prison, and having their sentence commuted by the Trump administration:

Inspired by stories like Alice’s, my Administration worked closely with members of both parties to sign the First Step Act into law. This legislation reformed sentencing laws that have wrongly and disproportionately harmed the African-American community. The First Step Act gives non-violent offenders the chance to re-enter society as productive, law-abiding citizens. Now, States across the country are following our lead. America is a Nation that believes in redemption.

The second guest mentioned, in relation to this redemption theme, was a man named Matthew Charles. Charles, with a face that beamed with gratitude, had been sentenced to 35 years in 1996 for selling crack cocaine in 1996 and became the first prisoner released under the “First Step Act” signed into law recently by Trump.

Like the President or not, this kind of criminal justice reform—after decades of excessive punishments—is something worthy of our praise. It is a first step back towards what once made America great and that being the opportunity to move on from our past failures, both individual or collective, and pursue a better tomorrow together.

Grievance Culture Never Forgives

Unfortunately, while legislative reforms are important, the President can’t undo a cultural progression away from Christian ideas of redemption and towards that of eternal grievance. Those sentenced by an outrage mob in the “court of public opinion” cannot face their accusers, they are denied any form of due process and are rarely, if ever, pardoned.

Media fueled public shaming campaigns, often at the behest of social justice warriors or their sympathizers, have destroyed careers mid-flight over a bad joke on Twitter—who can forget Justine Sacco’s sardonic quip about Africa, AIDS and race? One moment she was an anonymous leftist speaking cryptically about her white privilege to a small circle of friends and the next she is an international pariah for an allegedly racist remark.

Then there is Austen Heinz, the socially awkward genetic researcher and entrepreneur, who was driven to suicide by a bullying campaign led by Huffington Post, Daily Mail, BuzzFeed and other clickbait media sources.

His crime? He mentioned, off-the-cuff, some potential to change feminine scents, which was characterized as being “misogynistic” and “sexist” in one sensational story after another. Who knows what amazing breakthroughs someone as brilliant as Heinz could’ve produced in his lifetime had it not been cut tragically short by those who profit by pushing identity politics and division?

That’s not to say that there is no pushback against this sort of abuse. The wrongly accused boys from Covington Catholic High School are being represented in defamation lawsuits after suffering harassment and threats as a result of a media campaign, involving celebrities and other public figures, to shame them. One of the vicious commentators, Kathy Griffen, who called for their identities to be revealed and falsely accused them of using Nazis signs.

To Forgive Or Not To Forgive?

Of course who can forget the Brett Kavanaugh hearings or ignore the current uproar in Virginia over a photo in Democrat Governor Ralph Northam’s medical school yearbook showing a man in blackface with a Klansman?

And that’s not to mention the two sexual assault allegations that surfaced since then against Virginia’s Lt Governor, Justin Fairfax, and a Duke basketball player. Reportedly Fairfax used his knowledge of a young woman’s prior rape allegation being quashed by university officials as a means to victimize her again since he believed she would be unlikely to report as a result of her prior experience.

In all of these cases the evidence and allegations are different. They all should be addressed on their individual merits and in the correct venues. But all are also in the realm of politics and from many years ago, which really does significantly complicate matters. Who or what many believe seems to become more of a matter of whose ideological team you are on or the potential political fallout more than the actual veracity of the claims being made.

Political campaigns have long relied on digging up comments, years old, served up out of context, is simply how the game has been played. That said, that doesn’t take away from the seriousness of the more serious allegations, it is one thing to accuse someone of being a racist, sexist, or liar (largely subjective judgements) and quite another to be accuse them of rape. The latter accusation is either objective reality or it is not, potentially criminal behavior, and definitely reflective of a serious character flaw if true.

Still, with the lessor offenses or with unsubstantiated allegations, at what point do we forgive “human frailty” (as the Wall Street Journal puts it), remember that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 2:10), “judge not lest ye be judged” (Matthew 7:2), and move on? Should we ever treat human failure (real or alleged) like a permanent stain, a reason to always be suspicious of a person, or an irredeemable blemish? I would say no, based on the references provided above, but then…

Maybe Forgiveness Is Only For Some…?

One of the problems with how forgiveness is often used is that is used as a license for our friends and political/religious/tribal peers while simultaneously denying the same privilege to others. This is why a perceived smirk can become a national outrage while actual violence in malls is dismissed as “teenage boredom” and largely ignored.

I’ve long been against collective punishment for individual sins. I’m part of that generation who had Martin Luther King’s “content of character” rather than “color of skin” speech drilled into them and have always made a sincere effort to put that axiom urging judgment based on individual merit to practice. But I’ve found that this steadfast conclusion makes me a relic in the time of intersectionality, group shaming, unforgivable guilt for some and permanent victim status for others.

Perhaps this current generation is a correction to the overly optimistic outlook of my own?

Stereotypes are not entirely baseless, statistics do bear out differences in attitudes, behavior, and outcomes of groups, which could be proof of systemic oppression or simply our own cultural and biological inheritance. There is a reason why many professional athletes are typically of one demographic and chess players are of another, it has to do with discrimination and yet is discrimination based on ability despite coinciding with differences in race or gender. So it is conceivable, as well, that some groups are more likely to become school shooters and for others to me more generally violent as well.

There is a time for generalization…

For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. (Titus 1:10‭-‬14 NIV)

There may indeed be tendencies of groups that should be called out. That said, I doubt very much that St Paul, in the passage above, is making a case for unforgivingness or collective punishment. No, I’m quite certain that he, as one who once persecuted and killed Christians before his dramatic conversion, understood very much the need for redemption or he himself would forever be condemned. Had he been held to the same standard of today he would likely be completely disqualified from leadership and certainly never embraced as a brother by those whom he harmed.

Forgiveness Is For Those Who Repent.

One of those other problematic teachings that I’ve frequently encountered (particularly in my Mennonite religious culture) is this idea that forgiveness should be bestowed upon all people regardless of what they do or how often. This is based in a misapplication of Christian examples in a way that too often provides shelter for repeat sexual abusers and others who have learned how to game the system.

This idea that forgiveness removes any sort of accountability for sin is dead wrong. Sure, Zaccheaus needed to be forgiven for his taking advantage of people as a tax collector, but he also needed to repent of his sin and repentance required taking responsibility (financial or otherwise) for the wrong he had done.

In other words, had Zaccheaus been a child-molester simply admitting the sin or even an “I’m so sorry” speech is not enough, he would need to also face the civil penalties for his actions and also the social consequences as well.

The plea of Jesus on the cross, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do,” was not permission for those in the crowd chanting “crucify him” to go on murdering innocent people or an escape from need for repentance. Those in that outraged mob who called for his death would eventually need to repent and face the consequences of their sins like everyone else.

Forgiveness does not absolve a person from need to repent. Yes, there are times when we need to forgive those who have offended us without them repenting, we should always give a second chance (even 70 x 7 chances) to those who do truly repent (ie: have confessed and also paid the penalties for their sin), but this idea that forgiveness means complete freedom from consequences or removes the need to repent fully is not at all Christian—repentance is a requirement.

So, yes, we must forgive as we want to be forgiven and we should also not hold a grudge against those who have wronged us, but there is no indication that those who do not repent will be forgiven by God and we owe it to them to tell them the truth. Furthermore, according to 1 Corinthians 5:1-12, we should not even associate with a person who calls themselves a Christian and continues to live in unrepentant sin.

So, returning to the question initially asked…

Should People Be Given Second Chances?

The answer is both yes and no.

Forgiveness is something conditional. Jesus called for repentance, saying “go and sin no more” to a woman whom he forgave, and using a parable of a man forgiven a great debt who did not forgive to illustrate the point that forgiveness can be revoked for the unrepentant.

Second chances are for those who acknowledge their error (and repent) or can’t be found guilty of wrongdoing after the matter has been addressed in the appropriate manner.

There should also be allowance for growth—people do mature and change. There should also be some tolerance given to all people, because nobody is perfect, we all have our flaws, and would probably look pretty bad if our lives were put under the microscope of the outrage mobs. However, this tolerance and allowance should not only be for those who are on our team.

For example, we cannot say that blackface is the unpardonable sin of racism in one case and then play it off as a “coming of age ritual” (it certainly wasn’t for me) because our own guy got caught. We can’t treat a boy’s expression as a “facecrime” (thank you, George Orwell) worthy of national contempt while totally ignoring the grown men yelling homophobic and bigoted things (or worse, describe their hateful and intentionally provocative slurs as “preaching about the Bible and oppression” (*ahem* CNN) while simultaneously heaping condemnation on a boy for wearing a MAGA hat and an awkward smile.

That said, I would expect more from a fellow Christian, raised in a good home and under good instruction, than I would from some random dude on the street. Jesus did say that more will be expected from those who are given more (Luke 12:48) and that may mean we hold some to a higher standard. And yet we should also be aware that our own judgment is clouded by prejudice, that we don’t see everything a person is going through or the disadvantages they’ve faced in their lives, and therefore should err on the side of forbearance in all cases.

So there is no simple answers.

I do believe that our culture, due to social media, click-bait stories and a progressive decline in moral values, has veered dangerously away from forgiveness and redemption. We should definitely think twice before joining an outrage mob, we also need to do whatever it takes to keep partisan politics and tribal identities from perverting our judgment, and we should always give as many second chances to others as we would want for ourselves.

No matter your politics, you very well could be the next less-than-perfect person turned into an unforgivable villain by the mob, so keep that in mind next time you see a sensational headline, read a poorly concieved Tweet or watch a video clip without context.

Bullies Bullies Everywhere

Standard

Bullying is a serious problem.  There has been a popular campaign against bullying.  There are “no bully zone” signs around declaring intolerance for bullying or those who do.  It is probably safe to say that nobody likes to be bullied.

What is bullying?

To bully, according to Google, is to “use superior strength or influence to intimate (someone), usually to force him or her to do what one wants.”

The definition seems simple enough.  One might picture that overgrown brute who stole their lunch money in elementary school or the popular clique that picking on less fashionable peers in middle school.

However, I have seen the word applied to almost anyone who expresses an unwanted opinion. For example, the woman who expressed concerns about a sign (a topic of a blog I recently posted) and was accused of bullying and intimidation for it.  I have also heard a host on The View describe a subway preacher who offended Lea Selaria as a bully and laud her as a hero.

But is it really bullying to express an unpopular opinion? 

It seems to me it is more bullying to shout a person down or to encourage others to gang up on a person for sharing their opinion.  Sure, maybe someone does offend us.  True, we may want to enjoy bacon without guilt and do not enjoy being called a sinner.  Yet, does our being offended make it right to bully them into silence?

The label “bully” seems to be used to bully people who share unpopular opinions.  Those labeled as bullies seem to be fair game to be shamed, humiliated and ostracized by the group.  It would seem bullying is only wrong when enough people disagree with an opinion or behavior, but not when they do the same and worse to the accused bully.

Obviously, I do believe freedom of speech goes both ways and with that we are free to offend those who offend us.  Still, if we are truly against bullying, isn’t it a little hypocritical to bully those we label as bullies?

Group shaming of individuals is bullying and wrong.

Remember Justine Sacco who became  an international pariah as she was on a flight home?  Is it okay that a woman is subject to global scorn, threatened with violence, fired from her job and her life turned upside down for a sarcastic tweet about white privilege?  Is our being offended an excuse to attack and destroy another person? 

I don’t think so. 

I do not believe anything is solved by our answering every offense blow for blow.  I believe the best way to overcome bullying is with love.  It might take time to see results.  But if something is wrong for someone else to do then do not make excuses for doing it for yourself…

“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”  (Romans 12:21 NIV)

There is time for confrontation.  I would not hesitate to stand beside a person being attacked, belittled and intimidated.  But don’t expect me to join a mob against one person.  Mob demands rarely help the cause of justice.

I read it on the internet, so it must be true…

Standard

There was a story circulating a few years ago claiming that a mountain lion was hit by a truck in Pennsylvania and urging people to spread the news.  The claim was accompanied by a picture of a man with a big dead cat and also included mention of Game Commission denial.

This story was red meat for those of my friends who were already suspicious of the state officials (who maintained there was lack of credible evidence that mountain lions roamed the state forests) and was confirming proof to them.  The story included a photographic evidence, did it not?  How could it not be credible and proof of a cover-up, right?

As it turns out the same photo has been used in many stories to make different claims.  It is a real photo.  However, according to more credible sources, the photo was taken in Arizona and not in Pennsylvania or the many other places where internet stories claimed the animal was hit.  The story that the mountain lion was hit in Pennsylvania is apparently a lie.

So, why would a person be so suspicious and skeptical of one source (like the PA Game Commission) and yet be so gullible as to fall for an internet hoax from a random source?  Why trust a complete stranger who we have no way of knowing if the information they give is trustworthy or true while disbelieving sources that are at least somewhat accountable and knowable?

It comes back to confirmation bias or the idea that people will be more accepting of evidence that confirms their existing beliefs or biases.  Those who accepted the story as true already believed the truth was being hidden by the government and thus didn’t feel need to check the credibility of the claim.  They pick up and run with whatever tickled their existing partisan fancy.

I understand confirmation bias.  But it is difficult for me to understand why people are so easily duped by internet hoaxes and conspiracy theories from spurious sources.  It is especially difficult for me to understand how people can be so cynical of mainstream sources and then simultaneously accepting of a story posted by some random person on the internet.  It should be opposite, we should be more skeptical of a little known source and less mistrusting of those more known.

Time and time again I see stories posted by friends on social media, I do my due diligence to research the claim and oftentimes find it is a myth or hoax.  In an age of Photoshop pictures can be easily doctored.  Credentials can be fabricated to make an appeal to authority and I am instantly skeptical when someone uses that type of appeal rather than concrete evidence and sound logic.

Good cases aren’t bolstered by bad arguments.  True stories do not need fake photos or deceptive use of facts.  By using (or linking) unreliable information as proof of an idea a person is actually hurting their chances of convincing intelligent people who disagree and are potentially making a mockery of themselves.

Lies and fraudulent claims used to promote a moral argument are especially inexcusable.  I can understand why corrupt politicians and calculated propagandists distort evidence trying to gain power from the ignorance of their constituency.  I can also understand why immoral people fabricate stories and try to deceive for entertainment or whatever reason.  But what I cannot accept is false information used by those who are claiming the moral high ground.  It is hypothetical at worse and dangerous ignorance as best.

“These are the things you are to teach and insist on. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.”  (1 Timothy 6:2b-5)

A moral person should take responsibility for the stories they spread.  An untrue claim can do real harm.  Gossip, slander and evil surmises may help line the pockets of those trying to exploit the ignorance of others for their own gain.  But these things do do not help the cause of truth.  As people of faith and love we have no excuse to be casual with our sources.  Agreement in principle is not a reason to trust a source or be negligent of due diligence.

“Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance. That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.”  (1 Timothy 4:7-10)

Contrary to what some may think, being a person of faith does not automatically lead to better discernment.  We must actual train ourselves to be godly and discerning.  What this means practically is not just accepting internet stories as fact even if we like what they are saying.  We have a moral responsibility to be critical thinkers who can see past our own potential prejudices, misconceptions or biases.  It requires first being humble enough to admit what we want to think is true isn’t always true.

“Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.”  (Philippians 4:8)

If you do not know if a story is true or not, rather than risk promulgation of half-truth or lies, do not share it.  There is plenty that is good or honorable that we can share without risking the credibility of ourselves or hurting that which we claim to love in the process.