Here's a somewhat different topic but I think relevant for us. I will
introduce it by relating a recent incident.
My wife this Fall became co-director of a ministry that teaches English as a
second language to women (primarily wives of foreign students and visitors to
the University of Colorado). For many years, the ministry has passed out
candy canes at Christmas, with a card attached telling how various aspects of
the candy cane were made as a witness to Christ. Some of the text looked
fishy, and it turns out that most of this material, though it gets widely
repeated among Christians, is in the "Urban Legend" category (see for example
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/xmas/cane.htm). We decided it would be wrong
to give out material that bore false witness, but didn't want to upset the
little old ladies on the Board of Directors who don't like changing anything.
Ultimately, I rewrote the text so that it was no longer false (saying things
like "some Christians see additional symbolism") and we made new cards
without mentioning the previous false material to the Board.
But this got me thinking about how we should go about correcting others in
the church (or deciding that correction is not appropriate) when we see
something taught that we know to be false. This is potentially an issue for
all Christians, but more so for those of us with more education. And, of
course, it often comes up on science-related matters.
What principles should guide us when we recognize in the church some false
statement about science or another matter? I'd be interested in any
thoughts; here are a few "draft" principles to start discussion:
1) Any correction should be done in love and with grace, in a way that
corrects the falsehood without hurting the person who may have expressed it.
In this regard, we should be especially gentle toward those who are just
repeating privately what they have been told; I think there is Scriptural
basis for being more harsh with those who are teaching falsehood to the flock
(teachers have a responsibility to avoid falsehood), and for being harsher
still with those who knowingly bear false witness.
2) We should check our own eye for logs, and make sure that our correction is
done to serve God's truth and not to put the other person down or to show off
how smart we are.
3) The effect of the falsehood must be a factor. My pastor once related a
story in a sermon about Harvard snubbing a shabbily dressed Mr. Leland
Stanford, leading him to spend his money elsewhere. Somebody told him later
that this was actually an Urban Legend, and to his credit he put an apology
in the bulletin a couple of weeks later. That was relatively harmless, not
the sort of thing for which one would demand a reprimand of the pastor. On
the other hand, if somebody in teaching authority were spreading a harmful
lie like the Procter and Gamble Satanism rumor, that would be more serious.
Probably the two categories where action and rebuking is more appropriate are:
a) Falsehoods that slander others, like the Procter and Gamble story, or the
anti-Christian remarks falsely attributed to Attorney General Janet Reno that
have been circulated among some Christians.
b) Things that harm the witness of the church by making us look stupid. Here
I have in mind things like "Joshua's Long Day," the false things that get
cited in "15 reasons Jesus will return this year" sorts of talks (like an
increasing number of earthquakes) and some of the more ludicrous young-Earth
claims. This category can get touchy as what seems "stupid" to me might not
to others.
c) MAYBE a third category requiring action is where the falsehood contributes
to related unhealthy trends in the church. The "increase in earthquakes"
could be in that category, for example, since it reinforces the Doomsday
Prophecy obsession in some parts of the church (here again that gets touchy,
there are those who would not consider Chuck Missler unhealthy). Another
example would be the myths about America's Founding Fathers being devout
Christians intending a "Christian nation", which supports "Patriot" movements
and others who seek to do for America what the Muslims did for Iran.
For things that are fairly harmless, we still serve a God of truth so we
should seek to correct those too, but we must weigh the cost (both in our own
energy and potential discord caused) and there will be times when it is best
to "let it slide".
4) We can be more willing to offer correction in areas where we have
legitimate expertise. Since I'm a scientist and not a historian, I should be
more reluctant to offer correction to the "Christian nation" myth than to the
"increase in earthquakes" myth or misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Our willingness to "let it slide" should increase in areas where we are not
experts, particularly if there are others on the scene who are experts.
5) As with the instructions in Matthew about confronting sin, correction of
falsehood is better done in private than in public. But there might be times
where something public is called for, if the falsehood was promulgated in
public.
6) Deference to those in spiritual authority over us must come in someplace.
If I am leading a Sunday School class, I might correct a guest lecturer or
especially a class member on the spot if the falsehood were serious enough,
but if one of our pastors were addressing the class, it would probably be
more appropriate for me to talk to him privately later with a "Maybe you're
not aware of ..." sort of approach.
7) Is our own relationship to the person telling the falsehood a factor? I
think we are more called to confront sin in a close brother or sister than in
a stranger or mere acquaintance -- would the same idea apply to falsehood?
8) Humility, humility, humility, going back to #1 and #2 because they are so
vital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 01 2001 - 16:46:02 EST