That Bulverism is a fallacy (wherein one discredits the conclusions of another on the grounds that said conclusions benefit the concluder) does not mean that it is not also a temptation. Suppose, for instance, I were to make the argument that Roberto Clemente was the greatest all around baseball player in history. You would be committing the Bulverism fallacy if you thought you have proven that Willie Mays is actually the best all round player ever by saying to me, “You just think Roberto is best because you are from Pittsburgh.” The issue isn’t where I was born, or my motives for believing something. The issue is baseball ability. That said, the truth is that I am tempted to skew my assessment of those skills because of loyalty to the city of my birth.
We all suffer the same kinds of temptation. Sometimes it goes by the more scholarly term confirmation bias. You and I, coming from two different perspectives, look at the same evidence (or worse, mere affirmation) and quickly reach differing conclusions based on our differing perspectives. When there is an internet dust-up between congregants and a pastor my default position is to defend the pastor, because I have been a pastor. Those, on the other hand, who have ever been mistreated by a pastor tend to be quick to convict. (So also are pastors who are jealous of the accused pastor quick to convict.) We, because we like ourselves, are given to seeing ourselves as careful, dispassionate and thoughtful. If we better knew ourselves we’d confess to being sloppy, self-interested and thoughtless.
My first suggestion is simply that we slow down. It is much harder to change direction than it is to start in one direction. When we let our own interests start us in one direction it is nigh onto unlikely that the facts will change our minds. The immediacy of the internet, and the shrill cries on both sides of any given issue seem to demand we choose sides quickly. Wisdom, however, calls us to take our time (Proverbs 18:17).
Second, we need to start with a dispassionate assessment of ourselves. We can find such, happily in the Bible. It tells us that our hearts are deceitful above all else (Jeremiah 17:9). This text tells us more than simply that the guy we suspect must be guilty. It tells us that we who are doing the suspecting are guilty. You can’t adopt a skeptical pose toward “people” without being skeptical of yourself. Call it Zeno’s Paradoxical Uncertainty Principle if you like.
Last, all our lost socks are now appearing in that echo chamber that we call Sock Puppet Theater, or, our own peculiar corner of cyberspace. Because we like to have our biased ideas confirmed, we tend to hang out with like-minded people. We may call our favorite sites froo-froo names like The Center for Discernment International, or The National Center for Debunking the Center for Discernment International, but all they really are is meandmine.com versus youandyours.com.
There is a time and a place for strong language. And there is a time and place for caution. We often confuse the two when we are in high dudgeon. Which then puts us in the deep weeds. May God help me to be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.
I think it’s important for people to understand the two types of critical blogs out there. There are the old slanderbloggers, that always attacked conservatives like yourself from a liberal viewpoint. There are also now the new conservative discernment bloggers, who while not perfect, point out lots going wrong with the church and individuals. The two are different as night and day.
I think you’re rather optimistic there brother, and perhaps illustrating the point. We find the discernment bloggers that are going after our “enemies” to be sane and helpful while the discernment bloggers who go after our “friends” are slanderous yellow pseudo-journalists. I fear they’re as different as 2:00 AM and 3:00 AM.
We need to learn how to differentiate persons perspective from his doctrinal views. If we don’t then no one can think for themselves. There is a difference between up braiding a person for his behavior and an argument over doctrine. We should not be offended over the latter.