Slander

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[Linda]

One blog that I read daily is the bayly blog. David and Tim are a couple of Presbyterian pastors. (Their dad Joe Bayly was kind of famous and Tim and David's blog used to be part of the World magazine blogs).

Anyhoo, the topic of today's post was slander. Apparently, a Reformed pastor, Doug Wilson (of a church in Moscow, Idaho), took a stand on what he believes is right on a particular issue. What caught my eye wasn't that a pastor took a stand (against the beliefs of some other pastors), but that he was labeled as a slanderer for stating his position!

Here is an excerpt from today's Bayly blog. I thought it expressed very well the point that a lot of us have been trying to make. Namely, we all have a right to speak out about what we believe is Biblically correct. GCx leaders have that very same right. We can disagree with each other publicly and that is not slander.

It only becomes slander when untrue accusations are made against individuals. Saying things like "I believe the Dugans are incorrect" is not slander. Saying, "The Dugans are liars," might very well be slander if the Dugans haven't lied.

Anyway, here's part of what the Bayly's wrote:

Certain things must be said about the charges of slander being leveled against Doug Wilson on various internet blogs and bulletin boards that inexplicably aren't. If for no other reason, they must be said to reassure the people of Christ Church, Moscow, that their pastor is innocent of such charges.

I assume the people of Christ Church understand the ins and outs of most of the old accusations involving Christ Church and its associated ministries. But the more recent charges of slander may be harder to get a handle on. Is Doug Wilson slandering the PCA by his criticism of the PCA's judicial process against Louisiana Presbytery and Pastor Steve Wilkins?

So his opponents claim, but unless the PCA has grown a soul and body the answer is, in a word, no. Slander is a knowingly false and defamatory statement against an individual. From every perspective, biblically, lexically and legally, institutions are incapable of being slandered. This is an important point.... Those who attack Doug Wilson by rehearsing internet garbage are in danger of committing the sin of slander. It's a present danger whenever we speak negatively against an individual. But an institution can't be slandered. Biblical law protects the reputations of individuals, not institutions. There is no blasphemy against the Church, nor slander, nor gossip. All these are sins against persons.

Doug can attack process, he can criticize institutions, even whole churches, but it's only when such charges descend to the level of the individual that slander becomes a real danger. Even then, slander requires that the charge be knowingly false and defamatory. Gossip need not be knowingly false. Slander must be. Both must attach to individuals to come into existence.

[Valley Noir]

Here is an excerpt from today's Bayly blog. I thought it expressed very well the point that a lot of us have been trying to make. Namely, we all have a right to speak out about what we believe is Biblically correct. GCx leaders have that very same right. We can disagree with each other publicly and that is not slander.

It only becomes slander when untrue accusations are made against individuals. Saying things like "I believe the Dugans are incorrect" is not slander. Saying, "The Dugans are liars," might very well be slander if the Dugans haven't lied.

I agree with you (and the Baylys) up to a point.  However, I think the Baylys are offbase on this:

Slander is a knowingly false and defamatory statement against an individual. From every perspective, biblically, lexically and legally, institutions are incapable of being slandered. . . .But an institution can't be slandered. Biblical law protects the reputations of individuals, not institutions. There is no blasphemy against the Church, nor slander, nor gossip. All these are sins against persons.

First off, there is a legal theory under which corporate bodies (including the church) can hold others responsible for making maliciously or recklessly false statements.  Most states don't call it "slander" in their statutes, but that's what it is.  It's the type of theory that Scientology used to nail the Cult Awareness Network.  Second, the fact that the Bible says nothing about slander of a church isn't particularly relevant.  At the  time the New Testament was written, ecclesiastical institutions didn't exist, so there's no need to warn against slandering them.

Slander, or maliciously and/or recklessly false statements about a person, should be avoided, because it harms a person's reputation in the wider community.  The fact that our culture creates an "artificial" person, like an ecclesiastical corporation, to stand as a legal barrier between "natural" persons does not mean that natural persons, be they corporate executives, shareholders, or church communicants, are immune from injury when someone slanders the corporate body to which they belong.

So I'd say you can't slander an idea, but you can slander a person or any group of people, including churches.

[Linda]

can hold others responsible for making maliciously or recklessly false statements.

Yikes, I'm not saying it is okay to make false statements about churches, institutions, and corporations. I hope it didn't come across as sounding like I was saying that. I agree with you, it is wrong to make false statements about anyone or anything.

It is always wrong to make false and malicious statements.

However, since it is always wrong to make false and malicious statements, what I was trying to say is it is wrong to call someone a "slanderer" simply because they are publicly disagreeing with your position on an issue (in this case a theological issue). That is not slander.

It is wrong to call someone"divisive" if they are merely taking a public stand about an issue that you have a different opinion on.

Those are examples of slander. That was what I was trying to say.

I also think that is what the Baylys were saying. They were not on the topic of whether or not it is okay to say untrue things about a church or institution. Had their blog post been about whether or not it is okay to make false statements, I'm sure they would have written a similar statement as you did.

They were talking about a pastor taking a public stand on a theological issue and being labeled a slanderer because he came down on a different side than some.

A final example, you didn't just slander the Baylys because you said you thought they were "offbase" on a particular point. You stated where you disagreed and why you disagreed. You didn't call them liars, or slanderers, or dividers. You did not slander me because you only agreed with me "up to a point".

Sorry, I seem to have made it sound that anyone could say anything they wanted about anyone or any group, true or not. Bad writing on my part if that's how I made it sound. That's not at all what I was trying to say.

[namaste]

Valley Noir-

The legal theory you're thinking of is called "trade libel."  But that's a business to business cause of action.  It is especially dangerous to level false claims about a competitor's product.

Companies will also hold individuals liable for defamation by advancing theories relying on "interference with trade" and/or civil conspiracy.

HTHs.