(I grew up in the slums/a ghetto, so I can use the term. It’s actually unfair, though: people in the slums/ghetto tend to be more real and more honest than people living on the “right side” of the tracks.)

I had an interesting email exchange recently about what’s fair and ethical when it comes to the treatment of authors of books in posts on the internet. Here’s the gist of it:

Statements were made that seemed to be more about the author’s motivations than about the content of a particular book. I had contended that, prior to criticizing (even under the guise of questioning) someone publicly, it would be more appropriate to confront the author privately and express the concerns one-on-one. This, as far as I understand it, is the starting point of discipline according to Mt 18:15 –

If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.” (NASB)

Apparently, Christians are not bound by this principle when it comes to things – such as books or articles – that have been published and are therefore public. The explanation I received was,

Here’s what you have to understand about writing: when an author publishes a view in public, it becomes at that point a public discussion. Anything said by an author is open to such review . . .

“To publish a book is to go public; it is also to invite public dialogue about a book (especially one that has ‘becoming conversant’ in the title). I see the blogging to be just that: public dialogue about a book.”

Having been a print journalist for more than a decade, I think I understand about things that are public. But even among journalists there is a code of ethics that keeps one reporter from attacking the integrity or motivation of another reporter. Question the facts or conclusions? Sure, but don’t make it personal or question the other’s morality. Trust me: secular journalists are hardly a stronghold of moral and ethical uprightness!

But the point is being made that we don’t have to live by biblical standards in certain situations or settings. Isn’t this what Fletcher argued for decades ago, i.e., situational ethics?

I’m not sure where the biblical allowance for such a practice by Christians comes from. I do know that both Jesus and Paul confronted Peter publicly, but in both cases they confronted him directly in the presence of others. They didn’t go to others and criticize Pete in his absence: the sin was public, so a public rebuke was necessary. But Pete was there both times.

We can adopt the world’s standards on this, I suppose, but we should be slow to cloak ourselves with righteousness when doing so. It just seems to me that the person is more important than the principle being debated. If it is not possible to confront them privately, then perhaps an “open letter” to the individual would be appropriate. If there is an inadequate or no response to the rebuke, then consider taking it public.

It just seems like a public hanging is a pretty severe place to start.


2 Cor 1:13