When one person speaks about another there is
- a pretty good chance that they’re wrong,
- a much smaller chance that they’re malicious,
- a certainty that the report is biased, and
- a high probability that checking the facts for yourself will put you on their “nonfriends” list.
I’ve got more stories about this than I care to share. The last one was funny. A friend was rumored to have been in jail on Fri-Sun, as I was told when I asked about him. The truth? He had scheduled a three-day weekend months in advance, and didn’t do anything jail-worthy at all. I went back to the one who gave me the story and was told, “I can’t believe you asked him! I will never tell you anything again! I can’t trust you!” I thought it was funny.
By being trustworthy (seeking truth, trusting a friend) rather than being trusting (of the rumor-monger) I was counted as “untrustworthy?” How can that be? Because that’s how things get when people are involved. People are messed up. I know. Some of my best friends are people.
I’ve seen people do an awful lot of damage even when they were not malicious in intent. They were malicious to one person only because they wanted to be trusting and kind to another. Just “supporting a friend” and “respecting their wishes to stay anonymous.” That is conditional ethics, and is unjust however well-intentioned it may seem.
History Lesson:
In biblical times, it was a common practice to keep two sets of weights or two scales. You use the heavier weights when buying, and the lighter weights when selling. The difference between the “purchased” talent of gold and the “sold” talent of gold was all profit. The practice was listed among the very few things that God hates. Instead, we’re told to deal equally even though it reduces our very livelihood to do so, that a good reputation was worth more than we could take in such a way.
The troubling thing with conditional ethics is that it suggests that our character is not a feature of who we are an our personal values, but that character is merely a matter of conditions and relationships. I don’t buy it. I understand that you may have to choose between two good principles, but still hold that your values are internal and your character is a measure of how well you live out your chosen values (or perhaps a measure of your real values v. your spoken values).
We have warnings to deal equally with all people and to live at peace, but too often we don’t. Note that stirring up trouble and spreading lies is also listed among God-hated practices.
The problem was well stated on a programming mailing list the other day, as a long-time friend used the term Reckless Righteousness. I didn’t look up what he meant, I just let the sound bite speak to me. When we’re sure we’re right we don’t look for more evidence… we look at the world through our “righteous” glasses and every little nuance seems to support the opinion we’ve already formed. This is how prejudice lives on. I have been recklessly righteous before. I didn’t like it. Now I give the benefit of a doubt, and if I’m going to believe something I hear about someone, I want to make sure it’s true.
If I’m to live to a higher standard, I have to know what’s true. I cannot do justice without knowing the truth, and cannot love mercy if I listen while others are talking people down. I cannot walk humbly with my God if I am not living truthfully with my brothers. If I’m told something disturbing, I need to either get the truth or get out of the situation entirely. I don’t really have to take sides.
I’ve not always been innocent before, so I have to give the benefit of a doubt to people who aren’t entirely innocent. Likewise, those who are wrong unintentionally as I have been wrong unintentionally, and to those who are recklessly righteous as I have been recklessly righteous. If we are to hold to the standard, we must also forgive as we are forgiven. May it never be an embarrassment to them, and may it never be a barrier to us!