Gossip, Slander & Other Respectable Sins
Where Does a Christian Draw the Line?
Dear Reader,
Not much mail this week, but I did appreciate hearing from this fellow 50-something reader in response to last week’s two music posts:
“Today’s was a thoroughly enjoyable newsletter, in large part because it was so great to read about ‘Hold On Tight’…I also enjoyed your post that may have been from the archives, but is still highly relevant today. I often lament the disintegration of some of the simple joys of music that we experienced in our formative years. I miss the joy of walking into a music store and seeing rows and rows of records (and later CDs) to peruse. I miss the excitement of being able to finally walk into that record store and purchase that album you have been eagerly awaiting, the joy of taking it home, peeling off that cellophane, and knowing you were holding something amazing in your hands.
I miss friends getting together specifically to listen to music, especially if someone had purchased that new album and invited a few of their closest friends to come over and hear it. Truth be told, I miss albums - not just having singles to download or playlists to put together. You know how you could listen to an album enough times that you could hear the next song in your head even before it started? I don't think most people under 25 will really have that anymore. The convenience of instant accessibility to any music has some perks, but I think there is a whole lot more that we’ve lost in the process. But perhaps I'm just an old fuddy-duddy, too!”
Apart from the insinuation that I am “an old fuddy-duddy,” I resonate with his comments (also this meme that I found, which is hilarious):
Time to go yell at kids to get off my lawn. Enjoy this week’s newsletter (and thanks for reading).
Craig
PS: As a reminder, you’re welcome and encouraged to email me directly with feedback, ideas, links, etc. at cmdunham [at] gmail [dot] com. Just know that, unless you specifically tell me not to, I may quote you here (though it will always be anonymously).
Hot Takes
“Millennials Are Stuck in the World Boomers Built” - As the cartoon above perhaps betrays me, suffice it to say I’ve always found the generational dialogue fascinating. However, I’m still trying to wrap my head around the recent idea that Generation X (those of us born 1965-1980) are somehow going to fix the world. For example, read this excerpt from an interview in Vox with Millennial senior editor at The American Conservative, Helen Andrews, author of the new book, Boomers: The Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster:
“If there’s hope, it lies with Gen X. They are the last people with any memory, any foot in the pre-boomer world. The boomers were not Gen X’s parents and they weren’t Gen X’s teachers, and that keeps them anchored and gives them some spark of life. The boomers, by clogging up the career pipeline, have refused to get off the stage and give Gen X its moment. So even though Gen X is aging now, we still have not yet seen all that they can do. We have not seen a world run by Gen X-ers.”
Don’t get me wrong; I’m flattered (kind of). But in true Gen X fashion, I’m also skeptical and a realist, mainly because I’m not convinced any generation can pull us out of the mess that’s been created. Then again, maybe that’s how we do it: stop proselytizing progressive mantras that “we’re the generation to bring change,” and instead revisit and reanimate truths of the past that actually have?
While I’m not sure I agree that Gen X can fix the world, I’m always amused by some fun and exciting generational shade-throwing.
“Lil Nas X's Unofficial 'Satan' Nikes Containing Human Blood Sell Out in Under a Minute” - I get it: they're shoes and this is marketing. But anyone who wants to play fast and loose with Satan and the occult would be wise to take him at least as seriously as Jesus and the apostles did - ‘a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour’ (1 Peter 5:8). (Note: Nike is suing for trademark infringement.)
Rapper Lil Nas X with a “Satan shoe.”
“Mr. President, the Equality Act Defies Your Church's Teaching” - Mary Eberstadt is a senior research fellow with the Faith and Reason Institute and brings both (faith and reason) to bear in her third open letter in Newsweek. Bold.
President Joe Biden prepares to sign the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Extension Act of 2021 into law at the White House on March 30, 2021.
Gossip, Slander & Other Respectable Sins
In his Sunday newsletter, journalist David French (with wife Nancy) published “They Aren’t Who You Think They Are: The Inside Story of How Kanakuk—One of America’s Largest Christian Camps—Enabled Horrific Abuse.” The Frenches’ report is well-written and researched, revisiting the case of Kanakuk staff member Pete Newman 10+ years after he was convicted of sexually abusing 57 campers over 15 years.
Being a former camp guy, I read it slowly and sadly, then sent it on to a friend of mine who worked at Kanakuk during the time of Newman’s actions and arrest. Here is my friend’s response (you can read Kanakuk’s official statement about that time here):
“This article you sent has me upset. It feels like they (the Frenches) are riding the coattails of scandal. Do you know what their goal is/was? Why now? Why dredge this up again? Because of Ravi?”
Long-time religion writer Terry Mattingly, musing on the story and the Frenches’ brand of Substack newsletter journalism, seems to think so:
“Looking at the piece as a whole, it is clear that the Big Idea here is that some Christian leaders are using nondisclosure agreements to prevent their followers from knowing all the details of scandals of this kind. It is possible to view this issue from a purely legal perspective. But that isn’t the drive that is at the heart of this Dispatch piece. No, there are ethical and theological issues in play here.”
The Frenches discuss their motives in the “Conclusion” section:
“As we worked on this story, we faced a common question. Why? Why shine the light on a scandal that’s now 10 years old? There are some who told us this attention is ‘unfair,’ that it’s ungracious or unforgiving of people who’ve done so much good. Many thousands of kids, after all, count their days at Kanakuk as among the best days of their lives.
The response is simple. There is no statute of limitations on truth. While there are limitations on legal processes, there are not statutes of limitation for individual and institutional accountability. A false narrative has circulated about Kanakuk for a decade, and parents have sent children to the camp without knowledge of its history or access to material facts.”
But what’s the goal? What’s the desired outcome? The story was reported then and has now been (re)told on a much bigger scale, but several additional facts were barely given lip service in the story. As this article in Christianity Today reports,
“In a handful of states, camps aren’t required to comply with the same regulatory standards as schools and daycares. Kanakuk set out to become an industry leader on the issue of abuse when it launched its own child protection program after Newman’s case.
It has since put on child protection training seminars for leaders from more than 450 fellow Christian camps and ministry organizations. Rich Brashler, the longtime risk management coordinator at Kanakuk, continues to speak at events around preventing and responding to abuse at summer camp.”
It’s not as if Kanakuk has done nothing in the scandal’s wake. Again, from my friend:
“It feels like gossip. It feels like shock and awe to gain an audience for a story that was reported on 10+ years ago. Their title says, ‘They’re not who you think they are.’ This is the start of my problem with the Frenches. They don't know the full story of who they (Kanakuk) are. They give little to no charity for the thousands of kids who come to know the Lord there or who are ministered to and loved with Christ-like love. They have no idea about who Joe White really is or Pete's full story. How when he was a boy he too was abused. I hate that this happened, but this article is not charitable. They seem to have their mind made up about Kanakuk and it's not going to change.
This article treads dangerously close to drinking the Kool-Aid of cancel culture and for what? A 10-year-old story that they have nothing to do with? If I could call the Frenches, I’d say, you want to write about something that’s meaningful, write about the person who committed suicide and reference the story as an example of the dangerous long-term effects of abuse. Tell that story. But tell it in a way as a reminder and a cautionary tale for us now as the Church and Christian leaders, not as a judgmental and misunderstood half-story that leaves readers with a deep indictment of shock and judgment for Kanakuk. What good does that do?”
What good, indeed?
Motive, Means & Goal
Whatever motives lie behind the Frenches’ research and publication of the article, the story is out there (again) - ostensibly as a follow-up to the Pete Newman story 10+ years after the fact, maybe as a follow-up to the Ravi Zacharias story from September, and perhaps as a cautionary tale to discourage cases of abuse yet to happen.
But it seems weird.
It seems weird because it seems so random and out of the blue. If I didn’t know the Frenches (and I don’t, but I’m trying to believe the best), it wouldn’t take much to convince me that this is a hit piece of some kind, the goal of which seems only to see owner Joe White fired and Kanakuk shut down. Why does it feel this way? Timing, for one (10+ years?); for another, there’s no clear objective in mind that I can discern. By their own words, “As far as Kanakuk is concerned, the scandal is over.”
So is this gossip? Is it slander? The Frenches themselves seem aware of the possibility (at least they ask themselves the “Why?” question toward the end of their piece, though for me the answer is found wanting in terms of offering a specific and practical outcome). I can’t say the article is or isn’t gossip or slander without potentially committing a similar sin (if indeed that’s what it is) against them; after all, motive, means, and goal are three requisites for determining guilt, and a “1-out-of-3 ain’t bad” mentality in this situation doesn’t cut it.
In the absence of a clear-cut answer, perhaps it’s of greater benefit to consider what gossip and slander are, bringing them down to a personal level and evaluating our own motives, means, and goals in our speech. In a world that has never been so awash in words as now, there are probably worse ways to spend a few minutes this week.
Respectable Sins?
As so often happens (and as always reassures me as a believer in God’s sovereignty), what I’m reading of late speaks to the situation being considered. In Respectable Sins: Confronting the Sins We Tolerate, author Jerry Bridges devotes an entire book to those sins (yes, he actually uses the word - twice in the title) at which our culture barely bats an eye, and that we in the Church downplay when logged in our own. He writes:
“…The entire concept of sin has virtually disappeared from our American culture at large and has been softened, even within many of our churches, to accommodate modern sensibilities. Indeed, strong biblical words for sin have been excised from our vocabulary. People no longer commit adultery; instead they have an affair. Corporate executives do not steal; they commit fraud.
But what about our conservative, evangelical churches? Has the idea of sin all but disappeared from us also? No, it has not disappeared, but it has, in many instances, been deflected to those outside our circles who commit flagrant sins such as abortion, homosexuality, and murder, or the notorious white-collar crimes of high-level corporate executives. It’s easy for us to condemn those obvious sins while virtually ignoring our own sins of gossip, pride, envy, bitterness, and lust, or even our lack of those gracious qualities that Paul calls the fruit of the Spirit (see Galatians 5:22-23).”
I’ve been in Christian churches, camps, schools, seminaries, organizations (parachurch and otherwise) in some combination and permutation for a majority of my 50 years. During this time, I’ve never known or seen anyone carted away for actually committing murder. I’ve known some who were guilty of the physical act of adultery. But I’ve known plenty who were guilty of spreading rumors and telling lies.
In the Church, everyone agrees that murder is beyond the pale (which is good); adultery still carries a slight stigma (though not as much to be an effective deterrent); but gossiping and slandering have rarely seemed as big a deal (let’s just say I’ve never seen church discipline enacted for it). This shouldn’t surprise us, says Bridges:
“It’s easy to let ourselves off the hook by saying, these sins are not as bad as the flagrant ones of society. But God has not given us the authority to establish values for different sins. Instead, He says through James, ‘Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for [is guilty of] all of it (James 2:10).
That Scripture is difficult for us to understand because we think in terms of individual laws and their respective penalties. But God’s law is seamless. The Bible speaks not of God’s laws, as if many of them, but of God’s law as a single whole. When a person commits murder, he breaks God’s law. When a Christian lets corrupting speech (that is, speech which tends to tear down another person) come out of his mouth (Ephesians 4:29), he breaks God’s law.”
This “all or nothing” understanding of God’s standard is what I and so many Christians often don’t get. It’s not which standard we fall short of that matters; it’s that we fall short of all of them when we do. It’s not that some sins are more acceptable than others; it’s that no sins are acceptable, period. Writes Bridges:
“When I indulge in any of the so-called acceptable sins, I am not only despising God’s law but, at the same time, God Himself. Think about that the next time you are tempted to speak critical or unkind words about someone.”
Three Considerations
As I think about the Frenches’ Kanakuk article in the context of what Bridges talks about (particularly chapter 19, in which he writes specifically about “Sins of the Tongue”), I confess I have a hard time justifying its publication. Consider:
“As we think of sins of the tongue, let’s begin with the one most people think of first: gossip. Gossip is the spreading of unfavorable information about someone else, even if that information is true. However, gossip is often based on rumor, which makes the sin even worse. Indulging in gossip seems to feed our sinful ego, especially when the information we’re passing along is negative. It makes us feel self-righteous by comparison. And then there are those times when we disguise our gossip as, ‘I want to share this with you for your prayers.’ If we know something negative about someone, we should pray about it. But we should not spread around the bad news.”
There’s no question Pete Newman did what he did, and he is serving two life sentences (plus 30 years) for it now. Likewise, the Kanakuk organization responded in earnest to their lack of oversight with Newman (though perhaps nixing the NDAs might be a good step). It’s terrible that it all happened, but the predator has been caught and those involved - the victims and their families, as well as those staff at the camp who were betrayed - have tried to move on and rebuild their lives. I’m sure it’s been hard, but I don’t see how this article is meant to help.
“Closely related to the sin of gossip is the sin of slander. Slander is making a false statement or misrepresentation about another person that defames or damages the person’s reputation. Political campaigns, for example, are notorious for slandering opponents by falsely ascribing to the opponent a position based on statements taken out of context or based on some isolated that occurred some years ago. It is such statements that are definitely aimed at creating a false, slanderous impression.”
Again, the fact that all this went down 10+ years ago but is now being brought up again without (to my knowledge) another incident like it causes one to wonder what ax there really is to grind here. I’m all for catching and prosecuting sexual predators, but - and hear me out - running a camp that employs hundreds, even thousands, of young counselors and staff who, with every passing year are increasingly exposed to our culture’s screwed up takes on human sexuality, I’m frankly surprised that it doesn’t - and won’t - happen more.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be appalled if and when it does, but let’s not be so naïve so as to be surprised that it does, either (have you seen the state of the proverbial Village raising the children?). Dwelling on one incident 10+ years after the fact is not helpful; learning from it and working to make sure it doesn’t happen as it did can be.
“Critical speech is negative comments about someone that may be actually true but doesn’t need to be said. For example, ‘He spends too much time watching television’ or ‘She’s not a good student.’ The questions we should ask ourselves about these kinds of comments are Is it kind? and Is it needful? By the latter, I mean does it really need to be said?”
These, I suppose, are the final questions that the article just doesn’t seem to answer for me. Is it kind? To the Frenches’ credit (and as with most of their writing as journalists), I don’t find the tone of their piece mean. Is it needful? This is what I can’t figure out. It’s not like they were writing on the occasion of the ten-year anniversary of Newman’s indictment or sentencing. Did something else happen? What was needful to write about this topic now, investing over months of research, and to what end?
Conclusion
If anything (and especially as today is Good Friday), with regard to gossip, slander, and every other sin more or less “acceptable,” I’d like to think we can all agree that we live in a world that is not the way it’s supposed to be. The fact that the story of Pete Newman is as sad now as when he was preying on young boys who trusted him is just one of billions of heartbreaking examples of what sin - the transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7) - has wrought in our world. Make no mistake: It’s more than a mess; it’s Hell.
Thankfully, the good news of the Gospel that we celebrate this Easter weekend is that God Himself came to save us from our sins through the sacrificial atonement of Jesus Christ. From the corruption of our hearts and minds to the corruption of our bodies and tongues, Jesus’ death and resurrection are the only hope we have of forgiveness and peace with God, His creation, and our fellow creatures.
“He is risen.”
“He is risen indeed.”
Of all words spoken, these are best of all. May our own speech be so worthy of them.
Post-erity: “A Lament for the Bride of Christ”
Each week, I choose a post from the past that seems apropos of something (of course, you’re always welcome to search the archives yourself whenever you like).
This Post-erity post comes from September 26, 2006, and captures my hypocritical struggle of loving Jesus’ Bride (the Church), even as I am part of her. An excerpt:
“Does it not bother you (Jesus), the words she puts in your mouth? The assumptions she makes? The lack of concern she seems to exhibit for what you have always said you cared about? Does it not bother you that she is flirtatious and easily distracted by other suitors? That she is a gossip? That she is both a prostitute and a prude, depending on who's watching?”
Fresh and Random Tweets
This is what politics (or is it Texas?) does to people.
And this may be the funniest thing you’ll watch all week.
Until next week…
Why Subscribe?
Why not? Second Drafts is a once-a-week newsletter delivered to your inbox (you can also read it online or through your RSS reader) and it’s totally free.)
Keep Connected
You’re welcome to follow me on Twitter.