Facebook, Defamation, and the Gospel

If the title of this post seems paradoxical you have caught my intention. I weary of the voluminous number of untruths, speculations, and libel that I read in Facebook and other social media when I am simply trying to catch up with friends and colleagues. I am particularly distressed when I read posts that fall into the category of Social Media Defamation that come from my former students.

I taught leadership and pastoral ministry courses at three well known Christian Universities in Southern California. My students span decades of my experience. I enjoy seeing the posts of my former students on Facebook or other social media when they share significant life events (marriage, birth of children, personal accomplishments) and career development (pursuit of graduate degrees, appointment to a new pastoral assignment, or new job).

I cringe however when they post unexamined social media nonsense and rubbish. It is not that I want to see uniformity in my student’s theological or political thinking. I cherish well thought out policy discussions and disagreements. I am delighted in theological reflection that challenges assumptions and bias. Either kind of discussion renders a larger perspective for me typically bringing insights I had not considered. My angst is rooted in thoughtless reposts of patently unverified opinion, half-truths, and outright libel. When Social Media Defamation regarding any political leader or any political party or any other person posting on social media is promoted by a former student who identifies with faith in Jesus Christ I cringe. When someone insists that to hold an opposing political view is the equivalent to forsaking faith I cringe. When a post is so filled with vitriol that it is censored by Facebook’s community standards on harassment and bullying and the censored party boasts as though this is some sort of moral or political accomplishment I cringe.

Actual I do more than recoil in the repugnance I find in such posts. I pray and I repent and where I can engage in a discussion I do so.  It is repugnant to me to find students behaving on social media in ways that undermine the good news of Jesus Christ. If there were no reference to knowing Jesus Christ, if having studied theology wasn’t prominently listed in the individual’s profile, I still would pray but I wouldn’t feel the anguish of having another layer of bias to work through in my relationship with people who are struggling to define themselves spiritually, who are working through their own life crisis and who de facto reject the suggestion of God because of the behavior of those who have called themselves Christian but behave no differently than their peers.

So, for my former students (and friends) who take the time to read my posts, I offer some reminders. Social Media Defamation is wrong. One group of attorneys define Social Media Defamation as, “a comprehensive term governing the communication, publication, or act of disseminating a false statement of fact to a third-party, which subsequently causes damage or injury to another party’s reputation.  Social media defamation refers to a libelous or slanderous statement which is made on a social media platform.”[1]  Libel and slander are two types of defamation that may be defined as:

Libel: a written or published (think media, photographs, signs, print, etc.) false assertion of fact to a third-party or audience, which subsequently causes damage or injury to another party’s reputation.

Slander: a spoken communication or dissemination of a false assertion of fact to a third-party, which subsequently causes damage or injury to another party’s reputation.

Before you post, critically assess your sources. Does the post develop a logical case for the conclusion it promotes, or does it fall into the trap of logical fallacies? Does it come from reliable sources that depend on evidence, testimony, facts, or is it rooted in mere opinion? Does the post draw people to the promise of God or does it vilify others who are different? Does the post engage others who may hold different views offering a reason for the conviction held and asking for input that may challenge it?  Does the post respect and values others? Is the post honest about your own questions, fears, or biases?

Please discontinue (repent) the practice of either compartmentalizing faith or expressing a syncretistic faith (remember your lectures in evangelism and cross-cultural ministry). Critically assess your own practice and assumptions by prayerfully reflecting on who Jesus said he was and what he said the kingdom of God was meant to accomplish. Jesus was always clear to differentiate the power of God set to redeem, reconcile, and deliver and political power when it came to the authenticity of what he did and the methods he employed. This doesn’t mean he minimized the influence the kingdom of God has on political power and practice; he never conflated the two.

I am thankful for you. I delight in you. I pray for you. As I said often in class, I am watching you as I know you are watching me. Let’s encourage one another in faith and show the world also watching us that the power and love of God is not wishful thinking or mere fiction but the reality on which our lives are building.

[1] Source: https://www.minclaw.com/review-social-media-defamation-libel/; accessed 25 November 2019.

What script are you reading from?

“What did he say?” Bill (not his real name) was eager to find out what his partner had talked to me about. Bill and Abe (not his real name) were in the middle of a fight that threatened the productivity of their employees and gave the whole company and uncomfortable edge – even their customers had picked up on the tension.

“He is open to an engagement to facilitate your board meetings” I responded.

Bill and I had been introduced by his attorney because the attorney could not get these two partners talking and he knew that I did facilitation work. In the weeks preceding my conversation with Abe, Bill and I talked about the power of facilitation and the way it could help he and his board overcome the gridlock they were in. Bill had been consistently open and optimistic about the potential of facilitation – that is until I reported on the results of my conversation with Abe.

Bill jumped from calm and measured to intense and angry, “He’s not sincere – he will tell you anything you want to hear. It’s his pattern. I won’t continue this charade of change. I need to buy him out and get on with things.”

“Bill,” I queried, “Abe sounded pretty sincere to me. He asked probing questions, wanted to know how facilitation had worked in other organizations and expressed his own frustration with the gridlock. Why don’t we engage a face to face and define what facilitation looks like for your company and what objectives we need to hit?”

Bill continued his tirade about Abe. What I didn’t tell Bill was that Abe had spent the first forty-five minutes of our conversation expressing his frustration with Bill. These two men fell into the same pattern of offense, accusation, counter-accusation, and rejection in every conversation they engaged. I wondered what had started this down-spiraling pattern that now held each of them prisoner to their own silence about what they needed. In fact, it was their silence about their need that was most astonishing to me in the face of their loud protests about the suspected motives of the other.

Is there a way out of a toxic conversational pattern? The answer is yes, but with some significant conditions.

First, will you stop and recognize that the pattern that emerges in every conversation is predictable and toxic? Employees in Bill and Abe’s company told me that they could predict each board meeting’s conversational pattern. They actually had a pool on the side that predicted when the conversation would go off the rails and they could recite the “script” that Bill and Abe used on each other when the meeting decayed into hostility. It was the same script every time with very little alteration. People “addicted” to anger and one-up-man-ship, like an alcoholic, must first admit they have a problem. Once a person is willing to see that the toxic communication pattern is their problem, not the problem of their nemesis they take the first healthy step – they break the pattern.

Second, will you be vulnerable enough to talk about what you need from the conversation? It’s interesting to me that Abe insisted that he told Bill in every meeting that he needed real numbers to make sound decisions. “Abe,” I responded, “may I give you some feedback on that?”

Abe looked at me askance for a moment and then agreed, “Ok” he said.

“You don’t ask for what you need, you accuse Bill of massaging his numbers to manipulate the decision,” I replied.

“Yea,” Abe retorted, “I can’t make strategic decisions with numbers that I know don’t include realistic sales forecasts. I need clear cost analysis and projected gross profit that takes into account our history and the current market conditions. I tell Bill in every meeting this is what I need.”

“Abe, do you see the difference between a request for specific parameters and an accusation that Bill is trying to manipulate the meeting?” I asked. “Listen to what you just said, you don’t tell Bill what you need you tell Bill his numbers are wrong. He defends his numbers, you show him your numbers and the conversation disintegrates from there.”

“Ah,” Abe reflected for a moment, “I think I see what you mean.”

“Abe is the problem the numbers or is the problem that you don’t feel Bill respects your expertise and perspective?” I asked.

“Geese Ray, where do you get that?” Abe responded.

“You told me that in our last lunch meeting,” I replied.

Abe’s eyes turned to the carpet and he grunted. “Humph, I hate talking with you.” He looked up, “I need to think about this.”

Third, exercise low-level inference rather than high-level inference listening skills. How much do you infer from the verbal and nonverbal communication you receive? Low-level inference doesn’t “read into” what is said, rather it asks for insight into the reasons something is said or done. High-level inference assumes an understanding of unstated motivations and intentions.  If a listener cannot listen to understand rather than listen to respond and if they assume they understand unstated motivations – the conversation rapidly disintegrates into a volley of accusations and counter accusations.

Will these three skills resolve embedded and toxic communication patterns?  No, but they are a significant first step to that end. When practiced they open the door past conflict to communication where the real work begins. Can toxic communication patterns change without these three skills and the decision to employ them?  No. Without these first steps, the organization will limp along toward its ultimate demise while it sheds its best talent and misses its best opportunities while the principals in the conflict continue their charade of power.