Welcome to The Square Inch, a Friday newsletter on Christianity, culture, and all of the many-varied “square inches” of God’s domain. This is normally a paid subscription feature but today’s is free of charge. Please consider subscribing to enjoy this weekly missive along with an occasional “Off The Shelf” feature about books, a frequent Pipe & Dram feature of little monologues/conversations in my study, and Wednesday’s “The Quarter Inch,” a quick(er) commentary on current events.
Dear Friends,
The Square Inch Newsletter is going into “low power mode” for the next couple of weeks. That means that I will endeavor to continue publishing the Friday edition on schedule, but The Quarter Inch and Pipe & Dram will be likely be dormant. After four and a half years at this, I’ve finally reached a life circumstance that requires dialing back. My eldest daughter is getting married in eight days and pretty much everything is being consumed with preparations for that momentous event.
Yesterday and today, for instance, we’ve been at my sister’s place in the country getting ready for the outdoor reception. Power washing and re-staining the deck, trimming trees, hanging lights, and that kind of thing. It’s going to be a small affair, but hopefully epic and unforgettable.
In the small sliver of time I have at the moment, I want to ask a question: are we reaching the nadir of what it means to be in a “post-truth” world? I am overwhelmed by the lies. Endless lies. People lie all the time, and always have, of course. Lie to make yourself look good, to round off the harsh edges of dubious behavior, or to make others look bad. Politicians have always had a rocky relationship with the truth. But it seems to me that the vice of lying has always attempted to pay tribute to the virtue of truth; people sought to make the lies plausible. To make them look like the truth. Nobody seems to bother with that anymore.
There would be no end to the examples, but here are a few. Obvious, full-gown men are deemed “women.” Joe Biden is as sharp as a tack. Kamala Harris is an impressive person. Donald Trump is a man of integrity. You get the idea. The swiftness with which the media changes narratives and the brazenness with which they insist on mutually contradictory ones, one right after the other, is particularly astonishing.
And this is not only a Left wing problem. The latest kerfuffle on the Right is the publication and release of Megan Basham’s Shepherds For Sale, her book allegedly exposing a “leftist” agenda pushed by evangelical leaders in exchange (“for sale”) for money, respect, prestige, et cetera. I am not just now going to get into the online debate raging just now over how fair or truthful she is, but it is obvious to me that the whole thing is simply a political proxy war. This is far more about picking “sides” and aligning oneself to a tribe than it is about the truth. Are you with “Us” or “Them”?
Truth suffers. Gavin Ortlund posted a 30-minute video responding to Megan’s treatment of him in chapter one of the book and it is objectively devastating. I say “objectively” because it is, well, objective. This is not really a matter of opinion. Megan did not tell the truth about what Gavin said. She selectively quoted and distorted his words and created a straw man caricature. And Megan’s double-down is simply breathtaking. And I am not afraid to say that those leaping to her defense with all manner of rhetorical sophistry, including some I count as friends, are profoundly wrong.
As it happens, right in the midst of watching this online conflagration (that resembles a schoolyard scuffle, “You did.” “Did not!” “Did.” “Did not!”) I received a newsletter from Jared Oliphint, a philosophy professor. His topic? The ethics of speech. He outlined five impeccable principles:
Summarizing/repeating someone’s position in a way that distorts that position and differs substantially from the original position is unethical.
A person’s organizational or institutional affiliation (however direct or indirect) or group membership has no bearing on the truth of a specific claim, and dismissing all claims from an individual because of such (real or perceived) affiliations is intellectually irresponsible.
Motives are internal, invisible, and notoriously difficult to discern, even one’s own. Dismissing someone’s claim based on an accusation of bad motives (money, status, influence, a political win) should only be done when there is clear, public, obvious evidence of such motives.
Insulting someone online is not less morally wrong than insulting someone in person.
The truth and value of claims should be evaluated on an individual basis. It is not the case that if a person believes P, they believe Q, however closely related P is to Q. Why? Because Q may not necessarily follow, and even when it does, people can be inconsistent and irrational in their beliefs.
I haven’t read Megan’s book, and what I’ve seen so far by way of reviews and her reactions to them do not inspire me. I have a feeling that if I read the book with this handy little cheat sheet in hand, it would not fare well. Because with respect to Gavin Ortlund, at least, she failed five out of five, almost as if Dr. Oliphint had her in mind when he wrote it. And her response (in addition to “Did not!”) has been classic Bulverism: “You would say that because you are …” Tragic and depressing.
Live not by lies. Even if—especially if—they signal you’re in the proper tribe.
Thanks for reading The Square Inch Newsletter. Have a wonderful weekend!
Just great, Brian. Fighting the right way is just as important as fighting the right war. 
How can we know what to believe? I was dismayed to read the WORLD magazine article about her book, an interview. I read it through twice and thought about getting it to read but have not. I did not know that your oldest daughter is getting married. Yes! You'll be busy. I hope we get to see some photos. I remember your wedding well, still have the bulletin with the poem.