Necessary Roughness

A couple of weeks ago, I had brunch with a vicar interested in starting a new church in our area. Yes, trombonejon, I bought his meal. It was his advice that caused me to alter my critique of one of Messiah’s sermons. Among the reasons was the concern that even if the facts are true, the personalization of bad behavior may still violate the 8^th Commandment (unless one counts them differently) about bearing false witness.

In the Large Catechism regarding the 8^th, Luther writes:

269] God therefore would have it prohibited, that any one speak evil of another even though he be guilty, and the latter know it right well; much less if he do not know it, and have it only from hearsay. But you say: 270] Shall I not say it if it be the truth? Answer: Why do you not make accusation to regular judges? Ah, I cannot prove it publicly, and hence I might be silenced and turned away in a harsh manner [incur the penalty of a false accusation]. “Ah, indeed, do you smell the roast?” If you do not trust yourself to stand before the proper authorities and to make answer, then hold your tongue. But if you know it, know it for yourself and not for another. For if you tell it to others, although it be true, you will appear as a liar, because you cannot prove it, and you are, besides, acting like a knave. For we ought never to deprive any one of his honor or good name unless it be first taken away from him publicly.

I was reminded again of this because of a political controversy in the LCMS that is festering its way into the public domain. This incident features a fairly recognizable name in the Lutheran blogosphere and an anonymously created free blog on Blogspot. There is a memo which provoked some commentary. The memo states a claim of executive power from the LCMS President with no reason why. I agree that this doesn’t pass a smell test. An explanation is certainly warranted.

Yet I’m not sure that this was the best way to handle it. It’s one thing to be journalistic and report that a memo was leaked. It’s another thing to guess the intent, especially in these situations which could affect us down the road. I’m no authority on Synod by-laws. It doesn’t serve my occupation to become one. It seems to me that there are whistle blower laws on the books, if people are indeed afraid of retaliation.

My standards may change as I try to bring them closer to what is right and good, not because it is conditional upon salvation, but because we are commanded to do good. I may have broken this myself in this blog in the past, and if and when I do in the future, please let me know and I’ll fix it.

I would like to leave the controversy over at the blog where it’s at now. I think there is a difference between stating an objective behavior that happened with one’s reaction to that behavior, and third-party deduction of someone’s intent. In this frame it’s more than appropriate for me to post critiques of sermons, books, hotels, and silly gas stations, being careful to not affect the reputation of a particular person. In the case of political and economic debate, which I enjoy, it’s better to debate the ideas rather than the person.