Truth & Libel
I was looking at the entry on Chris Walley's News from Farholme blog about the Simon Singh libel case, and I was really struck by his 'Christian take on this' section:
If pushed to give a Christian take on this, I think I would want to say three things. The first is that, as those who are dedicated to the truth, we must have some sort of commitment to supporting open discussion even if the outcome can sometimes be abusive and hateful. ‘You will know the truth and the truth will set you free' (John 8:32). Surely, one of the differences between Christian orthodoxy and fundamentalism is that orthodoxy is prepared to risk being criticised. ...
The second is that in the sovereignty of God (and the stupidity of men) such actions can actually be astonishingly self-defeating. Courtesy of this action I, and I'm sure many others, have gone from being neutrally ignorant on chiropractors to being better informed and distinctly more negative.
The third is the comforting thought that we know that the truth will ultimately triumph. Perhaps in this life but certainly in the next, the lie will perish. A verdict will be given that is more definitive (and certainly more unarguable) than given by any judge and jury. And if necessary we can wait until then.
I agree strongly with all three of his points. But the bit that really leaps out for me is his comment on the difference between Christian orthodoxy and fundamentalism. I've recently commented on Spike's blog about wheat and tares in the churches; maybe this is one way to distinguish them. How do they respond to reasonable, informed criticism? Whether it was correct or not, Simon Singh's column was both reasonable and informed. If it comes to that, how do they respond to unreasonable and ill-informed criticism? Reasonable, informed words, or bombs, bullets and flames?