It is a Christian virtue to paint those with whom we disagree in the best possible light. This includes their positions. So, for example, if I identify as a Republican, I should not depict Democrats as Communists. Conversely, if I identify as a Democrat, I should not depict Republicans as neo-Nazis.* Not only are such caricatures violations of biblical ethics, they are destructive to human dignity, which according to the Christian view, is derived from God’s own image. Demonizing my opponents is a failure to love both my neighbor and my God. Jesus died so that we might do both.
Our Social Environment
In public discourse, the demonization of one’s opponent has become far too common. Reason and logic have died, and the meme has been born. Memes are inherently unfair to their targets. They are designed to depict the opposing side in the worst possible light. Sadly, many professing Christians engage in sharing these memes on social media. And, of course, memes are not the only problem. Our social media environment routinely degenerates into a place to attack ideas with which we disagree and to affirm ideas with which we agree. Just consider the nature of likes and comments. We “like” things with which we agree. Often, we even find derogatory comments between people who have no prior relationship. I support reasoned public discourse, but surely we are entering disastrous territory when we are “debating” people on Facebook whom we have never met.
Additionally, our favorite news outlet paints opponents in the worst possible light, and, yes, I am speaking equally of CNN and Fox. News sources draw their revenue from depicting the opposing side as poorly as possible. This is why the same story sounds so different when reported by ideologically disparate sources.
The Ninth Commandment
The goals of social and news media are antithetical to Christian virtue. But there is a better way. Consider the ninth commandment: You shall not bear false witness.** We may be tempted to reduce this to testifying falsely in a legal situation. Or, better, but still too truncated, we may limit the command to telling active lies. But framing commands as negative prohibitions only stokes our self-righteousness while never offering us positive instruction. Put another way, in order to live a wise life rooted in Scripture we cannot merely settle for prohibitions. We must pursue a way of life governed by God’s wisdom. This requires activity not mere abstention.
Historically, Christians have understood the Ten Commandments as instructions for wise living. This is, of course, true of the ninth commandment. The Baptist Catechism frames the commandment both positively and negatively.
Q82: What is required in the ninth commandment?
A: The ninth commandment requireth the maintaining and promoting of truth between man and man, and of our own and our neighbor’s good name, especially in witness bearing.
Q83: What is forbidden in the ninth commandment?
A: The ninth commandment forbiddeth whatsoever is prejudicial to truth, or injurious to our own or our neighbor’s good name.
Notice that in both answers the name (i.e. reputation) of our neighbor is of chief concern. So, while we might insist that we have not told any lies—and I would argue that such assertions are often delusional because truth claims are dangerously subjective in our day—if we have portrayed our opponent as a one-eyed-one-horned-flying-purple-people-eater, we have violated the ninth commandment.
Before moving on with some further practical instruction mined from the rich resources of Christian history, let’s address the obvious objection: But what if my opponent really is a one-eyed-one-horned-flying-purple-people-eater? In that case, we do have an obligation to speak honestly, but here’s the key caveat: We must hold out hope until we are absolutely certain of this fact. In other words, we should first seek to understand our opponent with all the sincerity we can muster, and when in doubt, we should give them the benefit of the doubt.
Take the political debates for example. Might we depict our opponents in a better light? Instead of saying, “Democrats want to steal money from hard-working people” or “Republicans want to get rich while poor people suffer” might we recognize that both sides simply have different understandings on what is best economically? Perhaps Democrats sincerely believe the distribution of wealth is the best option while Republicans sincerely believe a top-down economic schema works best.*** By all means, disagree and vote according to your views, but avoid concluding that the opposing side represents Voldemort and his death-eaters.
This is precisely how the ninth commandment has been understood. Here is question 112 from the Heidelberg Catechism:
Q. What is required in the ninth commandment?
A: I must not give false testimony against anyone, twist no one’s words, not gossip or slander, nor condemn or join in condemning anyone rashly and unheard. Rather, I must avoid all lying and deceit as the devil’s own works, under penalty of God’s heavy wrath. In court and everywhere else, I must love the truth, speak and confess it honestly, and do what I can to defend and promote my neighbour’s honour and reputation.
Promoting our neighbor’s honor and reputation should be the governing principle for Christians in public discourse. While our logic must be airtight out of our love for truth, tight logic does not justify denigrating our opponent—which by the way is not tight logic since any first semester logic student knows that attacks on the opponent are informal fallacies. Speaking of informal fallacies, notice the Heidelberg Catechism states “twist[ing] no one’s words.” Much contemporary “argumentation” amounts to twisting an opponent’s words. This is apparent when someone makes a point only to have someone respond by using that point as a platform to leap into some absurd argument. For example, I recently saw someone comment that responding to “Black Lives Matter” with “All Lives Matter” is akin to spraying all the houses in a neighborhood when only one happens to be on fire. A comment responded by asking about rioting, looting, and burning public structures. That was an example of twisting the words about fire in a manner that was unfair to the original analogy. If there is an argument to be made, it must be made on the original analogy. This means we have to first take much care to understand exactly what is being said.
Promoting our neighbor’s honor and reputation should be the governing principle for Christians in public discourse.
Take another example. I once commented on a Christian leader’s remarks on using guns for self-defense. My point was simple: Christians should carefully consider the biblical injunctions before concluding that it is permissible to shoot another human. To be clear, I conceded that this is a gray area, and I am not a pacifist. Yet, rather than responding with careful biblical and theological arguments, I received retorts such as: “So you’re saying that you want your family to die?” Of course I was not saying that. I was only saying that since we are bound by Scripture, we should found our arguments on careful exegesis not emotion. Ironically, many conservative Christians will respond to pro-choice proponents by pointing out the logical problems of appealing to emotion, yet these same Christians will appeal to emotion with issues surrounding the second amendment or immigration.**** This illustrates a violation of the ninth commandment because emotional appeals are often covert ways of demonizing our opponents.
Perhaps the most incisive explanation of the ninth commandment comes from Luther’s Large Catechism.***** His whole exposition is worth reading, but allow me to quote one key paragraph.
Thus we have now the sum and general understanding of this commandment, to wit, that no one do any injury with the tongue to his neighbor, whether friend or foe, nor speak evil of him, no matter whether it be true or false, unless it be done by commandment or for his reformation, but that every one employ his tongue and make it serve for the best of every one else, to cover up his neighbor’s sins and infirmities, excuse them, palliate and garnish them with his own reputation. The chief reason for this should be the one which Christ alleges in the Gospel, in which He comprehends all commandments respecting our neighbor, Matt. 7:12: Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.
Luther maintains that unless we are in a position of authority or in close relationship, we ought not speak evil of others even if it is true. Instead, we should use our speech to serve others. This means covering their failings and showing them grace. Practically, then, we should not jump on every comment that we disagree with. Rather, we should attempt to understand it in the best possible way. We should show extra generosity to it so as to depict the other person positively. Put another way, we should not assume the worst about others but the best. Was that comment racist or misogynistic? The initial response from the Christian should be, “I don’t think so.” Could it have been stated more carefully? Yes, of course. Christians ought to be the first to uncover beauty, goodness, and sincerity even when it is seemingly absent. Remember what Saint Paul writes: “Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endured all things” (1 Cor 13:7). Christian virtue demands that we depict those with whom we disagree as positively as possible.
Christians ought to be the first to uncover beauty, goodness, and sincerity even when it is seemingly absent.
The Greatest Commandment
Jesus affirms this in his summary of the law. When asked what the greatest commandment is, Jesus responds with a twofold reply.
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matt 22:37–40).
The OT is full of laws. The usual number given is 613. The Ten Commandments summarize those 613 in 10 statements. Jesus summarizes the law in two statements: Love God and love others. The Ten Commandments exhibit this division. The first four (in the Protestant numeration) concern the love of God whereas the remaining six concern the love of others. Thus, the Commandments address both our vertical and horizontal relations.
It follows, then, that Jesus’s twofold summary, which is the foundation of Christian ethics, includes a commitment to the ninth commandment. When we speak derogatively of our opponents, we are not loving our neighbor. We can press this one step further. When we fail to depict our opponent in the best possible manner, we are not loving our neighbor. Jesus teaches that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. We can all agree that we do not feel loved when we are not met with a gracious hearing or when our words are twisted. Loving our neighbor according to Jesus’s teaching requires that we extend the same courtesy we ourselves desire. If I misspeak, I hope I might be shown grace. If I disagree, I hope I might still be valued.
Failure to love our neighbor is also a failure to love God. Note how inextricably connected Jesus’s two statements are. The question asked for the greatest commandment (singular). Jesus responds with two as a way of saying that these two cannot be separated. This point is reinforced when he asserts that the whole OT depends on these two statements. When we demean our opponents, our love for God is called into question. Why is that? Part of the answer lies in human dignity.
Human Dignity
Depicting our opponents as villains is a way to devalue them as persons. Take name-calling as an example. Calling someone an idiot is an attempt to cheapen their worth as a human. Perhaps this is why Jesus likens this behavior to murder (Matt 5:21–22). Murder is the ultimate devaluation of a human being. It is literally taking another’s life into our hands, making us the judge of their worth and value. Speaking derogatively of another human being likewise makes us the arbiter of their worth and value. This is a serious violation that runs back to the opening chapters of the Bible.
And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Matthew 5:22
According to the Christian worldview, human value is not earned, it is derived. When God creates humans, he creates them in his image.
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, … So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them (Gen 1:26a, 27).
Human worth derives from being stamped with God’s image. Our culture, on the other hand, views human value as earned. That is why we reward successful and beautiful people while we largely ignore powerless people. This cultural view of human value must be resisted by Christians. Human value is not earned because someone agrees with our position, it is derived because that person was created in God’s image. When we devalue another human by demonizing them or depicting them poorly, we are failing to love God because we are rejecting his creative mark on humans. It is this mark that gives them value. Psalm 8 makes this point.
[W]hat is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor. You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet (Ps 8:4–6).
There is still a more sinister component to our devaluation of other humans. In Genesis 3, we meet a seductive serpent who questions God’s goodness. The heart of the temptation comes when the serpent says, “You will be like God” (Gen 3:5). The irony is, of course, that they are already like God. But notice that the serpent has called their present value and dignity into question. “You need something more,” says the serpent. You are not valuable as you are. God’s image is insufficient. The project of Satan is to devalue God’s image in an effort to rob God of glory. When we devalue another human by failing to treat them with dignity, we are participating in Satan’s devaluation campaign.
The project of Satan is to devalue God’s image in an effort to rob God of glory. When we devalue another human by failing to treat them with dignity, we are participating in Satan’s devaluation campaign.
Part of being made in God’s image is being relational. Pay close attention to the words. “Let us make mankind in our image.” Sin wreaks havoc on the relational aspect of humans. Our relation to God is distorted (Gen 3:8). Our relation to each other is distorted (Gen 3:16). Our relation to creation is distorted (Gen 3:17–19). When we treat other humans with contempt, we are following the pattern of the serpent, and we are failing to the love God because it is ultimately God’s image that we are rejecting.
Conclusion
Now I believe we should never leave off with moral lessons. That is not Christianity. The scriptures testify to a much bigger problem than simply treating people poorly. Treating people poorly is a symptom of the destructive elements of sin. For this, we have the gospel of Jesus. Jesus did not die to whisk us out of this nasty planet to some heavenly realm. He died to set us free from the destructive effects of sin. He died to destroy the works of Satan (1 John 3:8).
He did this through his ministry. In the incarnation, Jesus reveals the perfect image of God in humanity. Jesus being the perfect image of God shows us just how much value God places on creation, especially humans. Jesus’s death, resurrection, and ascension enable us through the Holy Spirit to love God and love others.
What does this mean? It means that Christians have the power and freedom to love God and love others. We have been set free from the destructive games of the devil. We can walk a different path. So next time you are ready to share that juicy meme about the evils of your opponent, consider the fact that Jesus died so that you might walk in the way of wisdom.