A Christian Case for Gossip

Many of us were taught in childhood that it’s wrong to talk about people behind their backs. But, as many communities and institutions wrestle with secret abuses committed by their members, some argue that whisper networks can protect vulnerable people. Looking at the issue from the perspective of Christian ethics, theology scholar Matthew Lee Anderson argues that there’s a case to be made that, in certain narrow circumstances, Christians are not only allowed but obligated to gossip.

Anderson frames his argument largely in relation to the thought of thirteenth-century theologian Thomas Aquinas, who argued that Christians are generally obliged to directly confront someone who is behaving wrongly, and to do it in private to preserve the wrongdoer’s reputation. Aquinas presented two reasons for this. First, losing their good reputation can lead a person to further bad acts since they’re already viewed badly. And second, airing poor behavior within a community can normalize it so that others feel less compunction about their own sins.

However, Aquinas acknowledged that fraternal correction is only possible under certain circumstances and believed it need not be attempted if it seems likely to be impossible. And he supported public denunciation of bad actors in cases where this could protect third parties from harm.

“I suggest that a Thomistic account of gossip could both permit and even require defaming others behind their backs to prevent vulnerable people from unwittingly placing themselves in the way of harm,” Anderson writes.

He argues that informal conversations about wrongdoing such as sexual abuse can fill a gap in institutional responses, which are often limited and slow moving. Due to concerns about victims’ privacy and potential defamation lawsuits, many institutions don’t share the results of investigations publicly even after they’re completed.

When Christian schools and other institutions treat all negative discussions as divinely prohibited gossip while encouraging informal contact between authorities and other community members, it can open the door to abuse.

“Complete reliance on formal accountability leaves bad actors who enjoy good reputations free to exploit them without detection,” Anderson writes.

However, in contrast to some secular scholars who defend gossip for its role in social bonding and setting norms around appropriate behavior, he argues that, from a Christian perspective, these are not sufficient justifications. He suggests that we should worry about people engaging in gossip for entertainment, or to boost their status by demonstrating their inside knowledge within a community.

Ultimately, he proposes that people should engage in gossip only with great caution, solely out of a desire to protect potential victims, not punish offenders. And institutions should generally understand it as bad behavior. This means that a gossiper “risks their own reputational capital” to serve a larger good when they warn people away from abusers.

“As with killing, there should be nothing easy or pleasurable about undertaking our responsibility to protect vulnerable people through gossip,” he writes.

The post A Christian Case for Gossip appeared first on JSTOR Daily.