Information Gone Wrong

Deep breath.  Final quick prayer.  Ready.

Ready?  The subject is gossip.

I have always known that gossip is wrong.  I have associated it with bad attitudes and wrong motivations and generally wanted none of it.  I have not very often been the victim of gossip that I can recall.  I'm sure I have also been guilty of gossip, but I have a hard time recalling that too.  I'm  not sure that I've very often even heard gossip.  A bad memory is a mixed blessing, but maybe I've simply lived mostly among people who aren't that "into" gossiping, or maybe I'm clueless and insensitive to its presence.  (Is it a bad sign when too many sentences start with "I?")  I think it means the writer is going too fast to refine and vary the sentence structure nicely.  If you really wanted to, you could probably wring a bit of gossip out of the above--narcissistic, self-absorbed, arrogant--doesn't this writing style suggest these?  I digress.

One particular definition of gossip has reached me a number of times over many years, and I've usually felt a bit of distaste for it.  I think I felt rebuked by it, but also felt that the rebuke was vaguely unjust.  Finally the niggling thoughts could not be silenced without further examination.  On a hunch, I did some checking within the past few days and found out that the troubling definition probably originated with Bill Gothard.  It apparently appeared either in material he authored or in his public speech.  I also see exactly why this particular definition serves anyone well if their intent is to cover up wrongdoing.  Now I have even more distaste for the definition.  Here's a quote from a Christian publication in a column on gossip:

Bill Gothard gives us a more
comprehensive definition in these
words, “Gossip is sharing detrimental
information with someone who is not a part
of the problem or part of the solution”.

In short, I believe Bill Gothard's definition of gossip to be an exaggeration and an unwarranted extrapolation of the true definition of gossip, and of the intent of Scripture in warning against it.   That is certainly not to say that everyone who has ever repeated this definition has had nefarious motives in doing so.  On the contrary, I believe such people have often been themselves models of non-gossiping behavior, and they genuinely wished to protect others from the harmful effects of gossip.  In my experience, the definition has served as a helpful check on motivations.  Yet I wish to reject this definition and still uphold the teaching of Scripture against gossip.

I'll quote below from other writers who see the same things that I see.

At this site, in writing about how the matter of gossip was handled in the Great Commission Movement, which I have no knowledge of, Linda says:

Quote:  The old Bill Gothard definition comes to mind. It was something like "talking about something someone did when you aren't part of the problem or part of the solution."

Unquote.

Someone identified only as EveraStudent replied in these words:

Quote:  

Hi Linda, 

Mostly I agree with your definition of gossip, but I think it is too narrow.  

I would prefer to define gossip as passing along information for which there is no holy reason for it to be passed along except for deriving perverse pleasure.  

In other words, I may not be part of the problem or solution to someone else's situation, but I can still properly discuss a matter because it can be illustrative, instructive, and informative to a third party for them to understand what happened.

There are many instances in Scripture where someone is recorded as having done something "privately" but now all the world can read about it for all history because it was deemed illustrative, instructive, and informative for all humankind (even though no one can do anything about the original situation).  There was no evil intent in bringing it to light, and certainly no one gained a perverse pleasure in doing so.  I doubt that Luke enjoyed telling everyone that Paul and Barnabas had a sharp private argument.

Unquote.

Here's more.  This one is from a site on Sovereign Grace Ministries, also an organization with which I am not familiar.

Quote:

Something that I’ve noticed, and Theoden and others have pointed out, is that there is a lot of double-speak (where words have either taken on broader-than-normal meanings, or where people make statements that they believe are true but actually aren’t) going on within SG leadership. Let’s look at the example of “gossip”:

“Gossip” is defined (at dictionary.com) as, “idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others.” But within SGM, this definition has been expanded. I’m sure others could do a better job of summarizing what they’d say is gossip, but it seems to me their definition would be something like this: “Gossip” equals ANY TALK AT ALL about questions, concerns, or problems, unless you are directly engaging in this talk with the people who can answer your questions, concerns, or problems.”

At our SGM church, the pastor pretty recently did a 2-part series on gossip where he relied on the old Bill Gothard definition: “Gossip” is any talk of a problem with anyone who is not part of the solution.”

You’ll note that the original dictionary.com definition of “gossip” includes the word “idle” as a modifier for the word “talk.” “Gossip” by tradition is “idle talk,” NOT “any talk.” There is a big difference. If you are earnestly and honestly seeking to flesh out your thoughts, or seek feedback on an idea, or figure out if there even IS a problem to begin with, it is NOT “idle” (purposeless, pointless, meaningless) talk to discuss a problem with someone else. But of course, it IS “any” talk.

Also, SGM folks seem to have an extremely narrow definition of what they mean by “anyone who is not part of the solution.” By that phrase, they mean “anyone IN AUTHORITY who is not part of the solution.” In other words, unless you are discussing your problem, question, or concern with someone IN AUTHORITY who can fix your problem, you are engaging in gossip.


It’s all very nebulous and very subtle, but these distinctions are hugely important.

Unquote

My own random thoughts include these:

1.  Anyone who prays about a problem can legitimately be considered part of the solution.  Certainly, gossip can be couched as a prayer request, but refusing to speak of something negative can also preclude the prayerful interest of genuinely caring people.  They're not too likely to pray about something they have no knowledge of.  This speaks against narrowly defining the group that is included in the "part of the solution" category.

2.  Much of the prophetic message in Scripture came from people who were not involved in the "problem" and who were not recognized in their time as being part of the solution.  Yet their truth telling was an act of faithfulness to God, and, over time, their message was vindicated.

3.  People's minds work differently, and, what looks to one person as preoccupation with gossipy details may simply be another searching mind's way of trying to make sense of what it has been exposed to.  This search may be taking place with underlying compassion, and deep commitment to a redemptive response.

4.  Preoccupation with another's gossip is not to be encouraged.  Obviously it can be challenged if it occurs, but majoring in gossip matters--warning against it excessively, developing "radar" for detecting it in others, etc. are probably misplaced emphases.  Our main concern should be to seek to correct any of our own heart matters that might prompt us to engage in gossip.  Then we can trust the Lord to remind us if we stray into "gossip" territory with our speech.

Can you guess how many times I've asked myself over the past number of days if saying anything about Bill Gothard's record is warranted?  Can you guess how many times I've wondered if doing so constitutes gossip?  How about how many times I've quoted to  myself the "definition" of gossip?  I don't even know the answers to these questions, but I had a moment of truth when I realized that many of my agonizing questions harked back to mantras that came from the person whose wrongdoing is now exposed.  I don't owe those mantras a shred of loyalty.

I must guard against gossip, yes--the hurtful, vindictive, destructive, idle kind.  Illustrative, informative, instructive information?  That's probably a different matter.  The Biblical record suggests that it may be information gone right.