The Scripture takes a dim view of those who like to circulate juicy information. “A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter” (Prov. 11:13). But we have to do two things here — we have to note the contrast between the talebearer and the man with a faithful spirit, and we also have note how a lying tongue would try to spin this proverb around.
First, in this scenario, the talebearer is active, and the faithful man is active. The first actively reveals and the second actively conceals. The talebearer takes steps to make sure the word gets out. The faithful man takes steps to make sure that the “matter” does not get out. In this proverb, Solomon has a particular kind of situation in mind. He is assuming that the talebearer doesn’t care about the secrets or privacy of others, and the faithful man does. But rather than let the Scripture convict him, the talebearer proceeds to demonstrate my second point, which concern how this can be spun.
Let’s consider the logical options first. Taking all of Scripture together, we should know there are four possible ways to go. First, some matters can be revealed that should not be revealed (Prov. 11:13). Second, some matters are revealed that should be revealed (1 Cor. 11:18). Third, some matters are concealed that should not be concealed (Acts 5:8-9). And last, some matters are concealed that should be concealed (Prov. 11:13). There are many other instances in Scripture, but this gives us the drift.
Because there is a difference between a talebearer and a whistleblower, we have to be wise. Because there is a difference between someone covering a multitude of sins with love and someone covering up a multitude of fingerprints in panic, we have to wise.
When someone is a member of a faction or a party, this wisdom is not exhibited. Different situations arise, and the responses are categorized according to what would help the faction or party. For example, we see this kind of thing in Washington politics all the time, from both parties. Say you are opposed to the president. When someone in the CIA leaks something damaging to the president, he is a courageous whistleblower. If someone leaks something damaging to your side, he is jeopardizing national security. The party line is the template that people use to determine the difference between righteousness or unrighteousness. This way you don’t need to know the facts — all you need to know is what side you are on.
I have no doubt that I could take a false name, set up a web site attacking Douglas Wilson the hatemonger, reviling him for his sundry offenses against the Republic. If I were to do so, I would immediately have a cluster of new-found friends praising my pseudonym for his courage and integrity, not knowing the first thing about him. They would know nothing of my courage and integrity; all they would know is what direction my false name was shooting, and that, in this politicized age, would be more than enough.
This is why the biblical standards for ascertaining what actually happened are so crucial — standards like independent confirmation, checking the other side of the story, mutual accountability for accuser and defendant, ability to discern trivial from weighty matters, etc. — because without them, we have nothing but pushing and pulling. As Buffalo Springfield once memorably put it, “Singing songs and they’re carrying signs, mostly saying ‘Hooray for our side.'” Those for whom the facts don’t matter, and who exult in any victory for “their side,” no matter how obtained, will soon discover, as Eric Hoffer pointed out in The True Believer, that it really doesn’t matter what side they are actually on. Those who switch sides are not necessarily apathetic; they are often zealous converts. I have noticed (more than once) that men who were far too eager for polemical battle when they were on my side have been far too eager for battle (in just the same way) when they switch sides. Hoffer is a great read.