The Dishonesty of Advocacy
Photo by Bank Phrom on Unsplash
A political columnist one wrote this:
Whenever A and B are in opposition to one another, anyone who attacks or criticizes A is accused of aiding and abetting B. And it is often true, objectively and on a short-term analysis, that he is making things easier for B. Therefore, say the supporters of A, shut up and don’t criticize: or at least criticize “constructively,” which in practice always means favourably. And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist.
He also said,
Indeed, anyone who has ever written in defense of unpopular causes or been the witness of events which are likely to cause controversy, knows the fearful temptation to distort or suppress the facts, simply because any honest statement will contain revelations which can be made use of by unscrupulous opponents.
And,
The trouble is if you lie to people, their reaction is all the more violent when the truth leaks out, as it is apt to do in the end.
We can call this the dishonesty of advocacy and its advocates. The only way to find the truth, to move forward on an intelligent and informed basis, is to plea for the “dropping of illusions.” Passionate advocates prefer illusions to truth, hoping the illusion will disappear into the mists of history and be forgotten. It won’t be forgotten, especially by social media.
For instance. This is Kate Shellnutt’s (in CT) brief summary of what’s happening through the Executive Committee to the Southern Baptist Convention:
An independent investigation by Guidepost Solutions into the EC, released in May 2022, found that over the past 20 years, its leaders had compiled a secret list of more than 700 abusive pastors, mishandled allegations, and mistreated the victims who asked for help.
The investigation, which cost over $2 million, spanned 330 interviews and five terabytes of documents collected over eight months.
Advocates also have the nasty habit of revising their own histories.
Advocates also refuse to describe the other side accurately.
Calvinists simply will not describe Arminians accurately (ask Roger Olson). Progressives seemingly cannot describe evangelicalism accurately. Some cannot say one thing positive, thinking they will betray the cause and lose favor among the powerbrokers, about Kristin Kobes Du Mez or Beth Moore or Beth Allison Barr or John Piper or Mark Driscoll or Russell Moore, not that one of the three is the binary opposite of the other three.
Our public discourse has formed a barnacle of begrudging style. If one discovers something positive to say about the other side along comes a gassy release valve: “though I don’t agree with this person on all things” or “we all know such a person is wrong about X,Y, or Z, but on this one there’s something to listen to… but don’t listen too long.” If you think anyone is wrong all the time you need a deep dive and conversion in your anthropology. This is not fair description; it is the attempt to prove to one’s side that they have the bona fides. Such persons will do well to complement someone without any barnacles. Over time it is liberation, and profoundly charitable and unifying.
Some websites or magazines or journals will not permit a positive review of some authors because “it will favor the other side” or “it will encourage our people to read that author’s other books.” I have had publishers question my choice of quoting someone because “isn’t that person a conservative?” as well as “isn’t that person a progressive?” As if such persons are always wrong. When N.T. Wright or Andy Stanley or Jemar Tisby are your enemy, you’re the problem.
Advocates are partial and their reporting and descriptions are therefore biased. Rare does the advocate present a both-sided approach.
Without going public say something positive about three people on your perception of other side.
I am guilty and need to repent- I don't always like the "other side", okay sometimes i flat out ignore them and in the past have encouraged others to not seek them out. I struggle with the tension of seeing what is good, holy and just from the "other side", when i did not experience that from them. Growing up (Canadian) extreme Right Wing Evangelical I have had to "recover" and seek Jesus in a fresh way. Dropping labels and terms about all of us has been helpful and seeking to really listen to those on a different side has taught me that, "hey, we aren't so different" , but I am still cautious and especially protective of young women who heed a calling to preach, they are in for an amazing Christ centered journey , but some of the journey will be horrible as they encounter many that say, they should not be there. I still need to mature in this area of seeking the good , holy and just for the other side! Through God's grace I will keep trying.
As a missionary in Japan many years, one watershed moment for me was when the chair of the mission board, originally an immigrant from Hong Kong and active in both missions and business, made this observation after sitting in on field leader discussions, where most leaders were Americans. "You usually approach the issues that come up as 'either/or' questions. But you know sometimes, the answer is both, and sometimes it's neither."
Having returned to the U.S. one way I've tried to contribute is by calling out what I call "forced binary choices" and sometimes, appropriately I hope, complexifying things for people.