I have noticed over the years that if a person who is idolised by others comes in for criticism, and that criticism turns out to be justified, all manner of faulty logic will be used to defend them. In other words, people go to great lengths to defend those they idolise rather than face unpalatable truths about them (or at least entertain the idea that their idols are somehow less than perfect).
This faulty logic tends to be based on personal feelings rather than impartial judgement. For example:
"X makes me laugh, therefore X is a good person".
I have come across people who seriously judge others primarily by whether they can make them laugh or not. The way to some people's hearts is through their funny-bones, it would seem. The problem with this logic is that somebody's ability to crack a joke does not make them a good person. I have personally encountered some quite horrible people who were nevertheless quite talented in the joking department. And please understand this: some people may actually use humour as a bait to lure you into a trap. People who become ensnared in abusive relationships usually do so because at the outset, the abuser turned on the charm. They used things like flattery and humour to make their would-be victim feel at ease around them and eventually fall in love with them. Child molesters have also been known to use humour as a way to lure and groom their victims (former British TV presenter Jimmy Savile is a particularly infamous example). Another thing that humour can be used for is deflection. Some people, when accused of certain things, will try to make a joke about it (Ellen DeGeneres did this for instance when she "apologised" for the way she had treated her staff). It should be noted at this point that the Bible describes jesting (an older word for joking) as "not convenient" (meaning not suitable or proper) - Ephesians 5:4. Two other things described as "not convenient" in that same verse are filthiness (dirty talk) and foolish talking (idle chatter). All three of these things can be used by abusers to either charm would-be victims or maintain a façade to others. So again, someone could be very funny, but also extremely wicked at the same time. Therefore, just because someone makes you laugh and you enjoy their humour, it does not make them innocent of a thing they are accused of.
Another example:
"X is such a talented singer/writer/artist and their work always makes me feel so good, therefore X is a good person"
This is pretty similar to the first example, in that people defend their idols based on how much they entertain them. For example, there are people who refuse to believe that Michael Jackson ever molested any children because he was an extremely talented musician. They care more about how his music made them feel than anything else. He was such a musical genius, so he simply can't have been a child molester, they reason. The fact is, people are perfectly capable of being both. Just because someone may be brilliant in a certain field, it does not make them incapable of committing a horrendous crime. In fact, they may well use their talent and fame to their advantage when it comes to luring would-be victims. Jackson had no problem luring children to his ranch, because they loved his music and jumped at the chance to spend some quality time with the "King of Pop". Jimmy Savile too, being a popular TV presenter in the UK, had any number of children wanting to meet him. Rolf Harris had a kind of goofy charm and gave us some classic funny songs, yet he was a sexual predator. Kellen Winslow was one of the best NFL tight ends of all time and no doubt had many admirers, yet he has recently been convicted on various charges of rape and abuse.
Another situation where this type of logic is used is when CCM artists are exposed as being less than Christian in their lifestyle and doctrine. No matter how much evidence is presented to show how far short of Biblical standards they fall, their outraged fans ignore all that and continue to defend them because "their music makes me feel so GOOD!". They judge these artists carnally rather than spiritually. By their logic, the music makes them feel good, so the singers themselves must be good people. One more time from the top: just because someone has a talent for making you feel good, it does not mean they are a morally good person.
Let's move on to a third example:
"I know X/once knew X, and they have always been lovely to me, therefore X is a good person."
If you know someone through work or a friendship, you may experience their best side. But depending on how close you are to them, you may never see them at their worst. Therefore, the impression you have of them may be incomplete. A lot of people don't seem to get this though. They think that their experience of a person is somehow the only valid experience, and that someone else's very different experience is invalid as a result.
A very recent example of this has been seen with Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex (for now), who has recently been accused of bullying two of her former staff. These alleged incidents (they are not proven at this time) occurred three years ago, around the time she married Prince Harry. However, one or two of her former co-stars on Suits have come to her defence and claimed that she was lovely to work with. And perhaps for them, she was. Maybe she always took care to be on her her best behaviour around her fellow-actors. But that does not automatically exclude the possibility that she could have been horrible to other people, such as her staff. One person's positive experience with someone does not invalidate another person's negative experience with them.
To further illustrate this point, I'll use myself as an example. There are people who have only really seen my best side. So if you were to ask those people about me, they would give you a fairly glowing review. But there are others who have experienced me at my worst. To provide one instance of that: a number of years ago, a man once wrote a nasty mocking e-mail to me. I retaliated with a nasty e-mail of my own. Frankly, I am now utterly ashamed of the things I wrote in that e-mail, which was in violation of such Scriptures of those that tell us to love our enemies, not render evil for evil, not avenge ourselves and so on. Yes, that man was wrong to mock me, but I was also wrong in the way I responded. Now if you were to ask that man about me, he would give you a VERY different answer to those people who only ever saw me at my best. Neither the people who have only experienced my best behaviour and the man who was on the receiving end of my ungodly wrath have the full picture. But if that man accused me and showed my e-mail to him as evidence to back his claims up, and others countered with their good experiences of me, it would not invalidate his bad experience. His bad experience of me (although it was a one-time thing) is just as true and correct as others' good experiences. Or if I think of my translation clients, I have given good and reliable service to most, I think, but I can nonetheless bring to mind one or two with whom I "dropped the ball" (and deservedly lost them as a result). They would paint a rather less favourable picture of me than the ones who only got good service from me. Both would, in their own ways, be right. Once again, the positive experiences of some do not invalidate the negative experiences of others.
I'll finish up with this fourth and final example:
"X is often criticised by people for how they act. But I really like X, and what I think is what truly matters. Therefore, X must be the victim of some sort of conspiracy/smear campaign/vendetta."
To illustrate this last example, I'm going to use Meghan Markle again, but also Donald Trump. I'll start though with Ms Markle. Many people dislike her based on the way she behaves. However, she has many fans who don't want to face this reality. So what they do is invent straw men and attack those. In their eyes, anyone who dares to criticise the behaviour of their idol, Ms Markle, must be motivated by racism (because she is mixed-blood, with a white father and black mother) or sexism (because she's a woman and therefore a poor oppressed victim of The Patriarchy). Well as far as the sexism straw man goes, some of Meghan Markle's most ardent critics are WOMEN (such as the YouTuber "Murky Meg" and also Lady Colin Campbell). And when it comes to the racism narrative (which is frankly an insult to genuine victims of racism), I have seen a good number of negative comments about Ms Markle (especially since "Megxit"), and every single one of them relate to her BEHAVIOUR. I have not seen one single disparaging comment about her race. In short, there is NO EVIDENCE (at least, that I have seen, but others haven't seen it either, and those who claim it never show any proof) that Meghan Markle's detractors are in any way motivated by racism or sexism. Some may well be, but they are very much in the minority if so. It is her BEHAVIOUR they focus on. Nevertheless, her fans continue to set up these false straw men and attack them. (She also does this herself.) Their own narrative matters more to them than the truth. If they actually faced the truth, their idol might fall, and that is just too much for them to bear.
Which leads me on to Donald Trump. In many ways, Mr Trump is the polar opposite of Meghan Markle. Whereas she is a darling of the left-wing and liberal crowd, Mr Trump is greatly beloved by many Christians and conservatives. He is also male and white. However, just as many people dislike Ms Markle due to her behaviour, a lot of Donald Trump's detractors dislike him for the same reason. (Granted, there may be some who hate him just because he's conservative.) In fact, it could quite reasonably be argued that one reason why Mr Trump lost the US election is that many people simply couldn't stand him due to his immense pride and arrogance. (Take note: God also takes a very dim view of pride and arrogance - see for example Proverbs 8:13 and Isaiah 13:11.) The cavalier approach he took to the COVID-19 pandemic didn't win him too many friends either. However, neither Mr Trump nor those who idolise him are prepared to acknowledge that possibility. Something else must surely be to blame, in their eyes. And so they latched on to allegations of voter fraud. (Interestingly, the Myanmar military used this exact same narrative - claiming the election in their country was "rigged", "fraudulent" and "stolen" - to justify their coup at the beginning of February.) It is far more comforting to the Trump crowd to think that their idol has been the victim of voter fraud or some kind of left-wing conspiracy than entertain the idea that he might actually have to bear some blame for his own defeat. There has been no (or at least very little) evidence of voter fraud, but what matters is the comforting narrative, not the truth. In short, Donald Trump and his legions of adoring fans are every bit as guilty of using the same type of faulty logic to make Trump look better as Meghan Markle and her fans are to make her appear more saintly than she is.
Just for the record, I definitely lean much more to the right than the left, especially on moral issues. (Economically, I'm somewhere in the centre.) So from a purely political standpoint, I am absolutely not "anti-Trump". In fact, he did some good things while in office that were often not (or barely) acknowledged by the mainstream media, or alternatively heavily criticised (such as when he recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel - it especially gladdened my heart when he did that). Moreover, I felt as glum as any Christian or conservative when Joe Biden was confirmed as the winner of the US election. However, when Donald Trump is judged BIBLICALLY (rather than on the basis of personal feelings or political preference), his shortcomings become painfully obvious. Moreover, I have seen the way many people respond to him (in various TV news reports), and it is rank idolatry on a par with the way people worship rock stars, Helly-wood actors or megachurch pastors. Do you think God approves of idolising someone just because they are a champion of conservatism? The truth is, God hates ALL idolatry and tells us to flee from it (1 Corinthians 10:14, 1 John 5:21). When you make certain men or women your idols, it clouds your judgement. It makes no difference whether they lean left or right politically. You go by your personal feelings instead of stepping back and making more impartial assessments. Judging by personal feelings, also known as "following your heart", is a very foolish way to go about things (although there have been times I've been guilty of it myself, so I know first-hand how spiritually destructive it can be). The Word of God shines a very unflattering light on the heart of man:
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)
"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." (Matthew 15:18-19)
"And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." (Mark 7:20-23)
Instead of trusting our hearts, we need to trust in God and follow His Word:
"How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." (Psalm 119:103-105)
"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil." (Proverbs 3:5-7)
"He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered." (Proverbs 28:26)
Rather than view someone by our personal feelings, we need to learn to judge more impartially. An important principle in that regard is not respecting persons. Now, this does NOT mean disrespecting people as in being rude (something the Bible prohibits). In the Bible (KJV), respecting persons means showing favouritism or partiality. For example, if an annoying neighbour commits a crime, you might condemn their action and say they should go to jail. (After all, you would be rid of them for a while.) But if a famous person you really like commits the exact same crime, and you try to excuse their behaviour or accuse others of victimising that famous person in some way to deflect from their action, then you have committed the sin of respecting persons. You should judge both the annoying neighbour and the famous person in the same way, assuming their guilt is proven. And these examples of faulty logic that I have demonstrated above really boil down to respecting persons. Now let's look at some Scriptures on this subject:
"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." (Leviticus 19:15)
"Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it." (Deuteronomy 1:17)
"Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous." (Deuteronomy 16:19 - this verse prohibits bribery)
"For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him." (2 Samuel 14:14)
"Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies." (Psalm 40:4 - Trump supporters, take particular note of this one.)
"These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment." (Proverbs 24:23)
"To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress." (Proverbs 28:21)
"Yet ye say, The way of the LORD is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways." (Ezekiel 33:20)
"Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment." (John 7:24)
"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34)
"For there is no respect of persons with God." (Romans 2:11)
"And ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." (Ephesians 6:9)
"But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons." (Colossians 3:25 - God will judge all sinners equally, no matter what their social status, skin colour, gender or any such thing is, and we should show the same kind of impartiality instead of basing our views on how we feel about someone.)
"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors." (James 2:1-9)
It is abundantly clear that righteous judgement is impartial judgement that does not show undue favour to someone based on their social status, or how they look, or how you personally feel about them, and so on. Let me add at this point though that we should take care to gather evidence and not rush to judgement:
"He that is slow to wrath is of great understanding: but he that is hasty of spirit exalteth folly." (Proverbs 14:29)
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." (Proverbs 18:13)
"One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established." (Deuteronomy 19:15)
"But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." (Matthew 18:16)
"Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." (1 Timothy 6:12)
So we should not be too quick to rush to judgement (such as for instance concerning the bullying allegations against Meghan Markle), but on the other hand, we should not categorically dismiss a serious charge against someone either just because we may like them or because they have a high standing in society. (Going back to the bullying allegations, it is notable that there do appear to be multiple witnesses to what occurred between Ms Markle and her aides, which increases the likelihood that they are indeed true.)
If anyone reads this, feel free to comment on other kinds of faulty logic that people use to defend those they idolise instead of facing the truth about them (or at least being open to the possibility that they might be less than perfect). Or if I think of some myself, I might add them to this post later.
No comments:
Post a Comment