For reasons completely unknown to me, people don’t seem to get the concept of what a “personal attack” in an online venue really is. Many confuse it with “speaking the truth in love,” though only the writer seems to see the “love” in it. (Hint: for what love is, check out 1 Corinthians 13.)
With that in mind, I present this guide to detecting a personal attack. I can’t include every possibility here, as I’ve discovered humanity gets quite creative in its viciousness.
- If the comment has more about “you” or a commenter than about the topic, it might be a personal attack.
- If the comment consists of questioning the background of a person than the topic at hand, it might be a personal attack.
- If the comment would offend you if it were directed at you, it might be a personal attack.
- If the comment degrades another by intent and manipulation of what the other person said, it might be a personal attack.
Allow me now to give two examples of personal attacks that I have received.
The first one was on another blog, which I no longer read. It dealt with the ever-volatile topic of homosexuality. I noted that the term is hard to define, because some use it to refer to same-gender attraction while others use it to refer to full-out “participation.”
The response I got started by insisting that the first definition I mentioned above “sounds like a definition to me,” then went on to attack the remainder of the comment as though I said that were the definition. (I did not.) As the rant went on, it claimed that I was in big trouble if I thought God would do what was claimed, based on the false assumption of the definition. Had the person read it with an open mind, they would’ve discovered that what I claimed the Bible said about God was proof that the “attraction” definition couldn’t be included in the pile of “going to Hell” people. I discovered later that this person appears to be a troublemaker in the first place. I would call that a personal attack.
The second was in a Facebook group I administrate with my mother. The group’s intent is to explore what God’s word really says, rather than what some have been taught all their lives that it says. One woman, a self-proclaimed “apostle,” posted a video with the caption indicating that “the anointing” had to be passed on from one to another, rather than dying. The video was of a non-descript meeting, during which the “anointed one” would lay his hand on the head of another. The latter would then wobble and wander about, as if drunk. At no point was any “anointing” shown or mentioned. At no point was there any indication that the first fellow was about to die, as the caption indicated.
I asked, quite innocently and honestly, what Scriptures supported this.
I didn’t save the “apostle’s” response, but it was obvious that she was quite angry that I would even question her. She called me a “religious man” based on my Facebook picture (though what about me looked “religious” she didn’t say). She then asked what Bible I read. “Was it the one your grandmother wrote?” This question confounds me to this day, since (a) I never met either of my biological grandmothers, (b) I don’t know if any of them were Christians, and (c) I have no idea why they would’ve written a Bible. After further random ranting, she finally did provide a 2-verse reference from the New Testament that had the word “anointing” in it, at least in the King James. The group admins agreed that this was a personal attack.
We are all learning. As one pastor friend of mine said, the only time the truth is guaranteed to come out of our mouths is when we read from the Bible, and even that can be twisted when taken out of context. Question the content, but do not insult the author.
