"Promoting ... the Good Name of our Neighbor"

Ask most Christians about immorality on the internet and discussion will likely turn immediately to the prevalence of sexually explicit material. This is not an entirely wrong response, as internet pornography is reported to be big business, and sexual obsessiveness damages both individuals and relationships. However, the response also results from an unfortunate reduction of morality to matters involving sex in the minds of many religious conservatives. In fact, one might suggest that among Christians one finds more promiscuous -- and casually indifferent -- violations of the 9th Commandment (bearing false witness) than of the 7th (adultery).

People seem naturally to get their backs up at accusations of violating the 9th Commandment, as no one likes being called a liar (even when it happens to be true). In fact, during an earlier era of American history, a man who called another a liar might find himself shortly thereafter squaring off at 10 paces. Nonetheless, the Westminster Larger Catechism (question 144) explains our duty with regard to the 9th Commandment rather expansively:

"The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report."

The same catechism proceeds with the next question to summarize forbidden sins, but just the list of positive duties would seem to provide enough to shut down much of what happens on social media.

My wife and I were discussing this last night, and in the course of that discussion she brought up a valid and disturbing point: how can we expect church members to acknowledge the 9th commandment in the way that they engage social media when they are being discipled under the authority of ministers who routinely commit the same sins?

Now, I should hasten to add that we were not discussing matters related to anyone in our congregation -- or even the presbytery of which our church is a part. Nonetheless, the fact that we are Presbyterians means that we are in a denomination and tradition that holds to governing structures and processes we believe to be grounded in Scripture and adapted in our Book of Church Order. Yet, I see things written by ministers of our denomination (and similar ones) that are brazenly false. That is to say, I am not talking about matters that are open to varying interpretations; I am talking about clear falsehood. Because it is on the internet, the spreading of falsehood is public sin.

Whether the falsehood results from mental incompetence, a failure to make simple investigation, or willful moral deficiency, it is still false. Sadly, in many instances, sessions and presbyteries do not seem to care about counselling and, if necessary, disciplining their ministers who are guilty of this sort of sin. The practical result of this is that men stand in the pulpits of churches to preach the good news of Christ when some among their listeners know about their public sins against the truth. This is a matter of disgrace for the church.

it has been said that the American Constitution's First Amendment was not needed to protect speech about cute puppies. Protection of speech is required to protect the right to controversial speech. Similarly, we rarely violate the 9th Commandment regarding those we like: we fail in our duty more often when we disagree with someone or have some other reason for wanting to tear them down.  The conversation that my wife and I were having concerned the reaction of others to Aimee Byrd's recent book. I have not read it: Lanette has read it and provided 4,000 words of notes about its contents to a Facebook group. Thus, she knows the book pretty well.

Of course, Ms. Byrd's book is controversial, and there is plenty of room for discussion and disagreement with her conclusions and applications. I am not here to defend Ms. Byrd, in part because I have not read the book and am not therefore competent to do so, and in part because I am sure she was prepared for controversy given the subject matter and is more than capable of defending herself. However, much of the discussion on the internet features more heat than light, and by heat I mean illegitimate name calling, ad hominem attacks, and false and misconstrued information about Ms. Byrd's arguments and character. These are serious sins, and when ministers routinely commit them they should be counselled appropriately and brought to repentance.