On Exposing Men’s Sins Publicly
By Editor
(S. S. Times, February 1, 1913) WHEN is it our duty to bring a fellow man’s sin into public view? Is it possible that we may have a duty toward the offender, and toward those whom he is injuring, which does not necessarily involve public exposure? This question is interestingly put forward in a letter from a reader in New York State, who writes concerning an editorial paragraph that appeared in the Sunday School Times of December 7, 1912. The point of that paragraph was a remark by an experienced minister, who said, as to the suggestion that another minister, who was not doing right, be publicly denounced: “When God gets ready to expose that man, He’ll do it with a minimum of harm to the church. If you and I expose him, we’ll do it with a maximum of harm.” The inquirer writes: “Some time since, you published a paragraph on your editorial page, of which the thought was that man should wait for God to expose wrong-doers. I have been honestly puzzled to know just what you meant. If you knew your bookkeeper was appropriating your money and juggling his accounts to cover the theft, would duty require you to wait for a supernatural exposure?” “A county clerk in a neighboring county so manipulated the jury list that favored lawyers were always able to try their cases before picked juries, and therefore win. Two subordinates in the office knew the condition, and kept still. Was it right?” “A certain law has been on the statute-books of our state for a year. Our mayor and chief of police have decided not to attempt any enforcement in the city. Have citizens who know of the law, which has been carefully kept quiet, any responsibility?” “A minister is discovered by some of his congregation to be leading a double life, and this fact is known by more outside the church than in, bringing discredit on all religion among those who find in it proof of their belief that Christians are largely hypocrites. What should be done?” “If your comment does not apply in these cases, just what does it mean?” It is one thing to put a stop to an injury that is being caused by a man’s sin, and another thing to expose the wrong-doer publicly. There are undoubtedly times when public exposure is our duty; but probably it is far oftener possible to accomplish all that is needed, and with less harm, by refraining from public exposure. If a business man finds that his bookkeeper is dishonest, it is not necessarily the employer’s duty to commit the case to the courts. That might mean the moral wrecking of a life, when dealing with the offender alone and in private might mean a soul won to Christ and a new creation in Christ. And the injury would be put a stop to quite as effectively by the latter method as by the former. So of a minister whose life is untrue to his profession. Surely the very first move to make in such a case is for some one filled with the Spirit and the love of Christ to go privately to this man and talk with him about the tragic wrong that is being done, and about the power of God in Christ to make life over again. If the minister should yield up his life wholly to God, in confession and surrender, the situation, even then, might be such that it would be best for him to resign his charge and start life over again elsewhere, either in the ministry or out of it. But if this is done quietly and without public exposure and exploitation, how much better for all concerned! In the case of public officials, such as the county clerk and mayor and chief of police who are cited, there would seem to be more need of the public exposure of wrongs that have been committed against the public. Yet even in such cases the principle already suggested may, under some circumstances, apply. It may be possible to point out the wrong to the individual and have it promptly stopped. Or this method may fail. If it is tried and does fail, then it may be the plain duty of the one who knows of the wrong-doing to expose the offenders publicly and seek thus to put a stop to the wrong. The minister’s remark which was quoted in the editorial paragraph was meant simply to suggest that men should not carelessly expose a fellow man; that when God was ready to have the exposure made, it would be done with less harm than if done ahead of time by men who were not acting in accordance with God’s will. It was not the intention to suggest that exposure must come only in supernatural ways; for God can use men to do His will in this, as in so much else. In general, is it not a safe principle to believe that the public exposure of men’s sins is not likely to be a duty unless it is plainly the only hopeful way of stopping an injury that is being done to others, or unless we, by silence, would ourselves be guilty of practical connivance in wrong-doing? In many a case there is no such reason for exposure. A loving observance of this principle, applying it also to ordinary conversation on the subject of others’ failings, would keep a vast amount of misery and bitterness and increased wrong-doing out of the world.