How Should Churches and Christian Institutions Respond to Former Members who Bear False Witness in the Court of Public Opinion? (Part 2)

Like snow in summer or rain in harvest,
honor is not fitting for a fool.
Like a fluttering sparrow or a darting swallow,
an undeserved curse does not come to rest.
A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey,
and a rod for the backs of fools!
Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
(Proverbs 26:1-5)

There is an uncanny dimension to the series of proverbs cited above. Indeed, these proverbs purport to distinguish wisdom from folly, but surely, they do much more than isolate wisdom from folly. These proverbs rebuke folly and foster wisdom. Yet, the passage entails a function greater than this, also. This sequence of proverbs puts us to the test, scrutinizing us whether we embrace wisdom or folly and act accordingly. This function of the series of proverbs struck me in a fresh and potent way when various peers appealed to verse four—“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him”—to caution me not to respond to a shocking defamatory tirade against my reputation on Twitter with allegations having no basis in reality or fact. Of course, such caution is at least partially correct, for to wrestle with a pig in its own filthy pen where the hog delights to wallow will quickly render the two wrestlers indistinguishable.

Wisdom requires us to discern when and how to answer a person who lacks proper judgment and dignity lest the fool be wise in one’s own eyes. With discernment comes sensible and judicious assessment that restrains one from getting drawn into the fool’s vortex. To be pulled into the whirlwind to defend oneself against a fool’s slanderous rant imparts worthiness to wicked speech, dignifies what is undignified, and honors the dishonorable. A sensible individual understands the meaning of this proverb: “Like a club or a sword or a sharp arrow is one who gives false testimony against a neighbor” (Proverbs 25:18). My friend, Pastor Wayne Muri correctly observes that the slanderer’s venom crushes (club), pierces (sword), and inflicts injuries from afar (arrow) while hiding in the shadows and under the cover of darkness, taunting and daring the accused to play the fool and answer the allegations blow by blow. Twitter is a haven for wolves who gather in packs to commiserate with easily triggered peers to bemoan perceived injuries to their gossamer egos. From the comfort and safety of a snarling wolf pack on Twitter, they hurl fiery fabricated accusations, which discerning folks realize reveal the writer’s evil soul.

Wisdom bequeaths discernment. Yet, even wisdom stumbles as I pointed out in my last blog entry. There, I referenced a helpful article by Barry York that shows how one can speak truthfully and not violate the Ninth Commandment when speaking. I observed that it is excellent until the author makes his final point by referring readers to The Roys Report podcast, “where Julie Roys shines a light on abuse in the church.” Sadly, her journalism tends to be divisive and slanted, often exhibiting a lack of proper discernment. She is not heeding the Lord’s requirement—“Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of anyone, for judgment belongs to God” (Deut 1:17). As is routinely true of news reports and journalism today, Julie Roys’s reports are often askew, favoring the trivial and contrived grievances of complainants who foolishly gush torrents of bitterness while the accused wisely restrain their tongues because they know that where there are many words sin persists (Proverbs 10:19). Rather than delay publishing heavily lopsided reports she regularly declares, “The Roys Report reached out to _______ for comment, but he didn’t respond.” For example, this occurs four times in just one article: “Former Pastor: Bethlehem Baptist Dismissed Abuse Allegations Without Proper Investigation.” Discerning readers recognize the slant and refuse to embrace it.

This bias is readily apparent in her series of articles and podcasts in which she prejudicially reports hearsay against Bethlehem Baptist Church (BBC), Bethlehem College & Seminary (BC&S), and individuals within both. She gathers these rumors from disgruntled former pastors, professors, members, and students. When these social justice warriors were yet members, they disturbed the peace and incited disunity by filing allegations against both the culture of the church and the institution and viciously assailed individuals whom they identified as abusers. After two different investigations showed that their allegations were unfounded, they would not accept the settled findings. Instead, they angrily, loudly, and sinfully left the institution and church and now, without prudence and discernment, they hurl their defamatory accusations in public venues. Are there any as self-assured of their righteous cause as those who view themselves as witnesses who expose abuses of authority, seizing every opportunity to defame Christians and their churches and their institutions? Thus, like petulant brats, they prosecute their unsubstantiated charges in the World Court of Public Opinion, with Julie Roys all too eager to serve as the court reporter who mistakenly thinks of herself as judicious, reasonable, and impartial.

Consequently, like those who gather in Twitter wolf packs, many of The Roys Report’s readers, eager to receive choice morsels of gossip (Proverbs 18:8; 26:22), heedlessly sin by embracing the accusations as true rather than withholding judgment until having access to all the evidence: “In a lawsuit, the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines” (Proverbs 18:17). Rush to judgment characterizes the daily news cycle including so-called Christian journalism and news reports. Unfortunately, Barry York’s article, “When Gossip Is Not,” reflects this lack of discernment by promoting The Roys Report podcast.

So, if elders of a church, administrators of an educational institution, or individual Christians within either would be fools to defend themselves against the torrent of accusations that flood Twitter and gossip journalism, what should our response be to avoid folly? How should we respond to the insults, defamation, and false accusations from wolves who formerly were church members with us, taught courses in our institution, walked among us in our hallways, sat among us in the sanctuary, or were students in our courses? How should churches and Christian institutions respond to former members who behave as ravenous wolves, bearing false witness in the World Court of Public Opinion? Should we silently endure their bearing of false witness against our churches, our institutions, our own characters? What if there is a superior way to respond? What if we are obligated to respond with something much more substantive and holier than silent forbearance? This is the question that the next blog entry will address.