How to deal with posts you don't like—and the flip side

by Dan Phillips

I've noticed a pan-internetal phenomenon you'll all recognize. It's how different people deal differently with posts, articles, essays they don't like. (Now, I suppose I have to add "and pictures.")

You can not like a post for many reasons, reasons which will vary in part due to the post's content, and in part due to where you are, spiritually, intellectually, temperamentally, and time-wise (schedualically?).

Maybe the post in question is really stupid. Maybe it's palpably wrong. Maybe it's wrong and stupid.

Or maybe the content of the post simply makes you uncomfortable. It tweaks a pet notion, one of your me-ology theologies. Someone is advocating tee-totalling, and you disagree. Credo-baptism is the focus, and you like spattering babies instead. The post is aggressively [what-you-aren't]-mil, or enthuses about The You-Think-It's-Fetid Version of the Bible. It affirms the Bible's sufficiency, and the leaky-Canon position is very important to you.

So what do you do? Three main approaches spring to mind.

1. "Nothing to see here, move on!" You could just sigh, shake your head at the writer's dismal ignorance, and drive on. That takes some maturity and self-control, at best. Or it indicates indifference to the profileration of virulent error, at worst.

Nonetheless, not every fire is your fire, and you've not enough water in your tank (nor enough blank spaces on your calendar) to put them all out. Perhaps you recall, "Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears" (Proverbs 26:17). So you move on, saving your ammo for a more strategic battle. To mix metaphors.

2. "Your Honor, I would like to point out...." Alternately, you could step in, make a reasoned case, present counter-evidence, and stand by what you've written, ready to admit error or present further evidence as needed. You're thinking of Proverbs 18:17 here: "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." You might end up changing minds. You might end up realizing that you have to change your own mind. All of this takes maturity, self-control, intelligence, and a certain amount of free time.

3. (Ahem.) "Wahhh." Then there's always the great Christianoid trump-card. You could stomp in, judge everyone whose view threatens your own as "judgmental," separate yourself from them as being "divisive," hate them for being "unloving," and emote extravagantly about how "unspiritual" they are. You could brush aside the topic and condemn others for being condemning, tell them they're wrong for saying others are wrong, treat them harshly for their harshness.

I admit sincerely, there's a real beauty, of a sort, in this latter approach. Think about it, it really is remarkable.

It's like calling someone "racist." How can the accused possibly respond? How do you prove you're not a racist? Flat denial in the face of accusation is unconvincing. "Some of my best friends are ___" just gets laughs and rolling eyes. Get down in that mud pit, and you'll never get out.

Parenthetically, that happened to me one particular time. I was teaching a class of pastors, and found to my horror that a student had cheated on a take-home test, copying verbatim from the supposed-to-be-closed textbook. I overcame my gut-wrenching reluctance and confronted him with it.

His response? "You know, I suspected from the start that you have something against [insert race-other-than-my-own here]."

How would you have responded to that? Would you have accepted the invitation to leap into the mud pit, and prove that you're not a racist?

Here is my response, such as it was: "Look, don't even try to go there with me. This isn't about my feelings about your race. It's about the fact that you cheated on a pastoral ministry test. If you felt that I harbored hatred towards other races, you failed me as a brother by not rebuking me earlier, so that I could repent of that sin. That isn't our problem here and now. Our problem is your cheating, and what we have to do about that."

As I say, this "you're just not spiritual enough" approach has a beauty all its own.

You could literally take it to any thread, anywhere, and drop it in verbatim. I mean that literally: you could use the exact same words. You don't have to bring anything, contribute anything, prove anything. You don't even have to have read the post, or the comments! It could be your first time to the site, and you could not know the writers from Adam—or Adam West, for that matter. Just make the charges, and watch the fun.

(An aside: someone did just this in the comments section for one of my posts. I was talking with my son Matthew about it, and mentioned I saw the same person in another thread, on another blog. He suggested I do exactly what I just said—copy that person's comments verbatim, and drop them in the other thread under my name. It was beautiful, it would have worked perfectly. After I stopped laughing [which took awhile], I think I said something to the effect of, "Don't tempt me, Frodo!")

(Say... where did that boy get his naughty streak? Hm... but I digress, in Jay-Adams-like profusion of parentheticals....)

I'm convinced I've seen some who do this precisely this sort of disruption just for the entertainment it provides them, and the knowledge that it has yanked busy, productive people off-task for awhile and made them play the sniper's game.

What you are doing in this is giving an implicit invitation to the writer and all the participants to leave off that topic that made you uncomfortable, and to defend themselves personally. They have to prove the state of their hearts, to your satisfaction. (And be honest: short of total capitulation, will they ever do that?) Or for a bonus, they'd have to renounce the point you didn't like—because they're such bad people! Sort of a intellectual "suicide by ad hominem."

If things go your way, it's implicit that the others have to treat you nicely by your standards, and not really attack any of your points. Get this going, and you've got them. They're off-topic, focused on you, and on the defensive. They now are obliged make you feel good. And only you can rule on whether they've succeeded. It's now all about you, and your feelings.

If they don't play your game your way, you get to redouble the accusations, seal their condemnation, proclaim yourself a martyr, and—go, stay, whatever. You win! The topic loses.

Now, what the other participants—the writer, those who agree with him or her—should do is perhaps the topic of another post. The mud-pit is unappealing to me, and impractical for my calendar. I've seen folks I regard as vastly my betters go down that path, patiently responding and responding and responding and responding.

Almost invariably, they end up with nervous tics, talking to themselves, wondering whether they should just hang it up and take on something easier and more pleasant. Like sewer work.

Is there any other way to respond? One proverb does suggest itself: "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes" (Proverbs 26:5).

That approach is risky. It doesn't look very nice. It may instantly trigger the martyr-option, and that's never pretty. Sadly amusing sometimes. Pretty? Never.

But still, it is possible that God will use it to open eyes (Titus 1:13). This, of course, must be your hope and prayer, or you really are unloving, and you should repent. But if you have already seen others patiently and painstakingly respond to the very same issues over and over again with this person, without effect or progress, you may consider it.

After all, Jesus' idea of love is radically different than our age's notions. Hear Him: "Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent" (Revelation 3:19). Jesus' love isn't very loving, judged by our sentimentality. But it does explain why He moves the apostle to tell pastors to "reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching" (2 Timothy 4:2). How does the apostle define "complete patience"? It may vary situationally, but he tells Titus to reject a false teacher after two (2) warnings (Titus 3:10-11). In fact, in some cases the pastor must "rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith" (Titus 1:13).

Of course, in a perfect world, we'd never have to read posts that upset us. Or, from the other side, we'd never have drive-by's try to hijack threads.

But in the meanwhile, over here on this side of the Lord's return... I offer these thoughts for your consideration.

PS—how many words did I make up? How many hyphens did I use? If I had to pay $1 per hyphen, how broke would I be? Kids can play this game on long trips. Think of this as a Pyro summer bonus. We pack in the value for your buck's worth.

---