Diss Isn't Discernment

Posted by J. Mark Bertrand
on Thursday, August 17, 2006
|
Permalink

 
A few days ago, writing about the ennui that afflicts me sometimes when I peruse the cyclical disputes of the evangelical blogosphere, I said that "what passes for discernment in the blogosphere is often rooted in avowed ignorance, as if Christians believed that discernment was the art of living a life in which one is never called upon to ... discern." This morning as I drink my coffee, I'm shaking my head over a 'guilt by association' flap that's making the rounds. First, Jared Wilson pointed out an example of the (to my mind, rampant) error of condemning people for who they associate with. (Believe it or not, some of the folks whose Lord dined with publicans and sinners police these things quite rigorously.) Then Phil Johnson weighed in, giving an example of his own.

My little cloud of ennui dissipated a bit, because it's refreshing to see these errors addressed. And it occured to me that one of the problems with the self-appointed "watchblogs" where such logical errors are frequently coined, one of the reasons they're taken a bit too seriously, is that we've allowed a flawed view of discernment to hijack the discourse. We see that the particulars are wrong, especially when the watchbloggers address things about which we have personal knowledge, but we make the mistake of thinking only the particulars are wrong, when perhaps it's the whole system that's at fault. In other words, maybe the watchblogging world operates on an incorrect notion of what discernment is.

These are preliminary thoughts, but hopefully they'll prove stimulating. Based on what I see them actually doing, here's what I'd say the underlying philosophy of discernment is for the average watchblogger:

There are two groups of people and things: the good and the bad. Good is, well, good ... and bad is off limits. The art of discernment involves examining them and determining which group to categorize them in. Everyone is called to make these category distinctions, but some of us are also appointed by God to make them for others. Because most people are undiscerning, it falls on the discerning few to lead the way, especially when it comes to exposing bad people and things that are generaly held (by the undiscerning masses) to be good -- the wolves in sheep's clothing.

Now, one of the things I teach at Worldview Academy is wisdom, which involves discernment, and the first disclaimer I have to make to students is that I'm unqualified to teach the course. I don't hold myself up as a paragon of wisdom. Fortunately, it's not my intention to be wise for them. When we talk about discernment, I always make the point that no one can be discerning on your behalf. It seems to me that the whole watchblogging concept is founded on the opposite assumption. While they often tell readers to be more discerning, they provide the answers up front so that readers don't have to be. See what I mean? One of the community's laments is that no one is discerning anymore, but not much thought seems to go into why that is. I suspect that one reason is the way that everyone who talks about discernment does so in a way that their listeners aren't actually encouraged or equipped to discern.

But the flaw seems more systemic than personal. I believe these folks are operating in good faith, applying the aforementioned model of discernment because they truly believe that's what discernment is. I can relate, because I grew up within fundamentalism where that is the prevailing view, and for a long time I applied that model without thinking critically -- discerningly -- about it.

When I did, though, here's what I figured out. There are not two categories of influence, good and bad, that can be discreetly separated. You can't draw a line between the Christian and the non-Christian, between the evangelical and the non-evangelical, between us and them, and declare everything on one side safe and everything on the other suspect, and then expect the task of discernment to consist of moving people and things like so many checker pieces to one side or another of that line. For one thing, every person and thing is tainted by the fall, which means there are no pure influences under the sun. For another, God's grace and truth are active throughout creation, which means that not only do we get lies from truthtellers, but we also get the truth from liars.

To be discerning, you have to be critically engaged with a particular influence, sifting it, taking from it what is profitable. So you can't be discerning about something and ignorant of it at the same time. Probably the biggest complaint the watchbloggers get from the people they adjudicate against is, "You don't know what you're talking about." And you know what? When I see someone who claims to have knowledge on a wide variety of topics -- enough to be discerning on behalf of the rest of us -- but who is constantly told by those who do have such knowledge that they don't -- well, I start beleiving it. How many times has someone with a minimal knowledge of the subject come along, pontificated long enough to establish "the Christian position on X" and then moved on? Ideas have consequences, but so do seat-of-the-pants accusations.

Discernment, to wrap this up for now, is not about flipping a yes/no switch or pidgeonholing other people. It's about individual judgment based on knowledge -- knowledge of self, knowledge of the world, knowledge of God and knowledge of the thing being judged. Given that, you can see that it's as difficult to be discerning for someone else as it is to think for them. If I really want to see more discernment, then I should encourage people to think for themselves, to do the work for themselves, even at the risk that they will disagree with me (and say so in the comments).