Andrew McFarland > Blog > Who Am I Trying to Protect?
October 09, 2005
You'll probably have noticed that I'm not responding to any of Mike Kragman's accusations. Some people have assumed this is because I'm guilty. Others have assumed I'm adhering to some college-kid ideal of some kind. Actually, aside from any deeper reasons, I'm remaining silent to help protect one person, a woman who is haunted by a past sin.
Many years ago, Alison (not her real name) committed a sin. In her eyes it was a very serious sin. It was one of those things that nearly destroyed her life. Alison is ashamed of that sin. She regrets it. And she has repented. God is wonderfully forgiving, and because Alison has repented she is forgiven.
Humans are not forgiving. Alison is terrified that her forgiven sin will become public knowledge. There are times when she has been in tears at the thought of anyone finding out what she did. Matthew 18 is there, in part, to protect people like Alison.
Let's suppose Alison had been stealing money from the Sunday School bank account, and let's suppose someone wanted to expose her without the `inconvenience' of Matthew 18. One way they could do this is by firing accusations at her and seeing how she responds:
Them Have you been stealing hymn books?
Her No, of course not.
Them Have you been vandalising cars in the car park?
Her No, of course not.
Them Have you been stealing from the Sunday School bank account?
At this point, Alison would either have to lie or expose herself. Refusal to answer at this point would be seen as admission of guilt.
On the other hand, suppose Alison did what I am doing. The conversation would go something like this:
Them Have you been stealing hymn books?
Her I don't respond to public accusations.
Them Have you been vandalising cars in the car park?
Her I don't respond to public accusations.
Them Have you been stealing from the Sunday School bank account?
Her I don't respond to public accusations.
By refusing to respond, Alison is protected from having her forgiven sin made public knowledge.
If you refuse to respond to all public accusations then nobody can draw any conclusions when you refuse to respond to any particular public accusation. Those who are forgiven are protected by Matthew 18.
If I was to start publicly responding to Mike Kragman's accusations then I would open myself to unlimited accusation, where claims of my sin were made until there was one that I could not deny (and remember we are all sinful). On the other hand, if I never respond to public accusations, then Alison, and others like her, can follow my example, and the protection of Matthew 18 will be preserved.
There is good scriptural precedent for remaining silent in the face of public accusations, even ones that are easy to refute.
The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' " Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent. (Matthew 26:62-63, NIV)
And later, before Pilate:
When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. Then Pilate asked him, "Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?" But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge – to the great amazement of the governor. (Matthew 27: 12-13, NIV)
When Christ was publicly accused by those around him he did not respond to any of the charges against him – and neither will I.