"But I Know This Person"

An elder said something at one of the smaller Bethlehem Q&As last summer, and we've been reflecting on it.  At the start of the meeting the elders shared a few prepared statements in order to clarify some things from the 7/11 Q&A that appeared concerning.  Afterward, someone approached Elder X and said something like, "I heard the statement, but what really happened there [on 7/11] was he lied.  He lied."  Elder X reassured her (as best we can remember), "I know Elder Y.  If he thought that he had lied, he would repent for it."

I think this statement is extremely problematic.  

First, a few caveats.  I like Elder X.  I've benefited from his ministry.  Our interactions with him have all been positive.  I'm thankful for him and the gifts he brings to the church.  And I think what he said was probably well-intentioned.  He was trusting that the other elder would have properly repented if needed.

Also, while there were many concerning statements spoken by elders on 7/11, I'm intentionally not specifying which one was under discussion here, because I want to focus on a general principle, not the specific case.  I want to focus here on Elder X's claim and why it's so problematic, because I think it's a common view.

In many ways his view sounds so good.  Of course we want to believe that people are speaking the truth and would be quick to repent if needed.  Especially people we know!  Especially people at our church!  Especially people in leadership!  It's a good instinct to assume the best rather than the worst.  That's consistent with the Golden Rule.

Again, here's the claim:  "I know Elder Y.  If he thought that he had lied, he would repent for it."  

This claim is built on some assumptions.  First, it assumes that you know the person's true character.  Second, it assumes the person acts consistently.  It ignores the possibility that the person might act one way in one setting and a different way in a different setting.  The classic example is the abusive husband; if the wife says he's abusing her at home, it's not sufficient for someone to say, "but he seems so friendly at church."  So this claim is built on assumptions that may or may not be true in any given case.

I think there are 4 major problems with this claim.  First, this view makes it almost impossible for someone who says this to see any potential problems.  They won't even consider any evidence because they don't have a category that there could be a problem.  Second, it creates the potential for a huge abuse of power.  In this case, if Y did indeed lie, he's now effectively been told he can get away with it.  Third, when leaders hold this view, it makes them ignore their own responsibility to correct the person if needed.  In this case, the elders are supposed to hold each other accountable, which can't happen if elders just assume other elders would repent if they had sinned.  Fourth, once someone verbalizes this view to others (as happened here), they will scare people away from sharing concerns. Those people will think, "I don't want to share with you.  You are going to jump to the defense of your friend, and assume my concerns must be false."  This attitude will shut down people bringing concerns.  

For all these reasons, the "But I know this person" response is extremely problematic.  I think it's also very common.  I did the exact same thing myself last summer.  When I first heard concerns raised about the elders, I immediately thought, "But I know these elders; surely these charges can't be true."  It is hard and painful to be willing to consider evidence against people we think we know.  But it's important.

I think a better posture would be for all of us to be willing to listen to concerns and consider evidence, rather than dismissing them outright on the basis of a relationship.  Yes, my existing relationship is relevant, but it's not determinative.  This would serve the cause of truth, it would serve the person bringing a concern, it would serve the person who may have done wrong, and it would serve the church.