Please excuse my feeble attempt at alliteration. Having begged the reader’s pardon, allow me to define the word ‘foible’ before I proceed further. Simply put, a ‘foible’ is defined as:

• a minor weakness in someone’s character (Oxford Dictionary)
• a strange habit or characteristic that is seen as not important and not harming anyone (Cambridge Dictionary):
• a minor flaw or shortcoming (Webster’s Dictionary)
• a small fault or foolish habit (American Dictonary)
• a minor weakness or failing of character (Dictionary.com)

Synonyms for ‘foible’ include eccentricity, fault, failing, frailty, infirmity, and shortcoming. The word comes from 16^th century French, as an adjective meaning ‘feeble’.

Why do I claim that there are ‘foibles’ associated to social media? I’m glad you asked. Actually, based on recent, and not so recent experiences using social media (primarily Facebook), it just seemed to pop up in my tired old brain. Now you know.

Additionally, I need to say that my remarks here are specific to self-professed “Christian” FB groups dedicated to enlightening the rest of us concerning the truth of a certain ‘pet’ doctrine. For the purposes of this blog post allow me to use a specific example of one the several groups dedicated to ‘rightly dividing’ the text of scripture. The actual names of FB groups are omitted here in order to protect both the innocent and the guilty (concerning the aforementioned ‘foibles’, or weaknesses).

First, let me say that to ‘rightly divide’ the text of Scripture means, in simple terms, to properly handle God’s word, Literally, to ‘rightly divide’ means ‘to cut straight’. The Apostle Paul told young Pastor Timothy, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim 3:15).

For some however, the term ‘rightly dividing’, or ‘rightly divide’ has taken on a life of it’s own and become almost a mantra used frequently and often in ways never intended by the Apostle Paul.

But I digress. We’ll get back to our example, I promise. The topic here is the ‘foibles’, or weaknesses of social media that hinder intelligent, rational, and respectful dialogue. Here are a few that come to mind:

1. You can sit (and hide) behind a computer screen (or Ipad, Ipod, Iphone, etc.) all alone, by yourself, without seeing another face, hear a human voice, or recognize heartfelt emotions. You lose significant aspects of human communication that are present in face-to-face dialogue. In my opinion, this is at the heart of other serious issues.

2. Sitting alone behind your screen lets you make all of your opinions (about anything) known to everyone in the ‘room’, as adamantly as you want, without having to actually consider other’s opinions, or intelligently substantiate your own. You know you are right, you let others know that fact, and you can easily dismiss others’ contributions to a discussion, even calling them names, using pejorative adjectives to their faces, and refusing to even consider any opinions other than their own

3. Face-to-face communication allows for reading the Bible together, carefully examining relevant passages of scripture relevant to the matter at hand. Ripping passages out of their natural contexts to ‘prove’ one’s point is much easier when you are behind the ‘screen’. Sadly, that also occurs during face-to-face dialogue, but hopefully not as easily.

4. When you are sitting in the same ‘real’ room (as opposed to a ‘digital’ one) with other believers, discussions (especially with good leaders/facilitators) tend to be more organized and can flow much more smoothly than the online ‘free-for-alls’ we are faced with on social media.

Those are just a few weaknesses (foibles) of communicating via social media. I’m sure you can think of more. Back to our FB Group example focused on ‘rightly dividing’ the word of truth.

To many who use the term ‘rightly dividing’ (and variations thereof) in every other sentence. It means that the only NT scripture that pertains to Gentiles is from the middle of Acts through Paul’s letter to Philemon. The rest, including the synoptic gospels, Jesus’ own teaching, and Hebrews through Revelation was written to and for Jews only. Furthermore, Peter and Paul preached completely different gospels.

I’ve made it a project of mine to demonstrate, with as much gentleness and respect than I can muster up, and using excellent resources, as well as scripture itself, their ‘interesting’ beliefs. The responses I have received clearly demonstrate ‘social media foible #2, mentioned earlier.

“Sitting alone behind your screen lets you make all of your opinions (about anything) known to everyone in the ‘room’, as adamantly as you want, without having to actually consider other’s opinions, or intelligently substantiate your own. You know you are right, you let others know that fact, and you can easily dismiss others’ contributions to a discussion, even calling them names, using pejorative adjectives to their faces, and refusing to even consider any opinions other than their own.”

At this point I must freely admit that the attitudes and behaviors described above are not unique to those who claim to really truly ‘rightly divide’ scripture. We can find them all over social media, especially where individuals opinions are shared. Face it, people can be really ugly. Being able to hide behind a computer screen, etc. makes it worse. At least when we are sitting with one another, face-to-face, there’s a better chance of honest, intelligent, and rational dialogue.

So now the question for this old soldier is whether or not to just completely ditch some social media venues or keep trying to reason with unreasonable people. One thing I know for sure is that the amount of time I spend researching topics raised on social media, in support of finding the truth or a matter or issue is good for spiritual clarity in particular and my soul as well!

I recently joined a private Facebook group that claimed the following purpose:

“Promoting the Reformation that Luther started and supported by the reformers Calvin, Vermigli, Hooker, Bucer and connection to the fathers, creeds, councils which is ultimately supported by the infallible Scriptures.”

I read the purpose statement several times. Something seemed a bit off. Then I cut out much of the middle portion to leave “Promoting the Reformation that Luther started . . . which is ultimately supported by the infallible Scriptures.”, which helped me get to the questions bouncing around in my old brain. “Would this FB group focus on examining the reformers (particularly Martin Luther) and comparing what they taught with the text of scripture?” Since that seemed like a worthy endeavor, having been at one period of my life a worthy endeavor, I joined the group.

I spent a few days primarily discussing two topics before I left the group for reasons that will hopefully become clear. Those two topics were 1) infant baptism and 2) salvation by faith alone (sola fide).

Infant baptism was significant because the group’s creator and main admin came to the conclusion that infant baptism was the correct method of performing the rite. At the same time, I read a lengthy post talking about how one of the group members had also come to believe that infant baptism was the correct method. Reasoning was based on what was taught during the Reformation, which is, according to group members, clearly taught in scripture, even though the Bible nowhere commands it, but neither is it prohibited.

Salvation by faith alone, specifically Martin Luther’s views was the other topic I discussed, mostly with one of the other group members, a Lutheran, who told me that “Luther’s sola fide requires extra nos outward means of grace, or it isn’t sola fide.” The outward means of grace is of course, baptism (infant or adult). Although my Lutheran friend understood faith as an inward gift, baptism as an outward means of grace, while maintaining that they were completely compatible. The multitude of passages telling us that “faith alone” is the sole requirement for salvation do not matter. Perhaps he meant that since they don’t specifically omit baptism, baptism can be added to faith in order to be saved.

I politely left the group when it became apparent that he wouldn’t respond to questions I asked or to specific passages of scripture I offered. Other specific details of our lengthy discussion aren’t relevant to this article, although they were valid points of debate/argument.

What did I learn from my experience? I’m glad you asked.

1. Well, I added significantly to my digital library concerning the beliefs of Martin Luther concerning baptism and salvation by faith alone. At best, I can say that the great Reformer believed different things at different times, partly because of his Roman Catholic background. I found differing opinions from various resources.

2. My own views did not change concerning either topic. The Bible does not clearly teach infant baptism, nor does it prohibit the practice. Examples of Christian baptism in the New Testament include repentance from sin and trusting in Christ for salvation. “Faith alone” means “faith alone”.

3. We should follow the same advice the Apostle Paul gave to young Timothy:

“Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.” (2 Timothy 2:23)

4. While it’s certainly interesting to find out what certain Reformers thought about various points of doctrine, scripture must be the final authority in all doctrinal matters. If scripture isn’t crystal clear about a particular issue (modes of baptism) we should let that which is clear interpret what is unclear or less clear.

5. Sometimes it’s necessary to politely disengage and move along down the road.