The Credibility Conundrum and the Myth of Neutrality
Credibility is a complicated and precious thing. Calling one’s credibility into question can be an effective debate tactic and a devastating insult, often at the same time. It can’t be precisely measured in units, but it’s a staple of discourse. Classes on research and writing dedicate time to determining if a source is credible, and teachers may provide lists of publishers and the like that typically produce credible material. It’s no surprise then, that credibility is occasionally emphasized so heavily by Christians. “Think about your witness,” or any variation thereof is Christianese for, “This could affect your credibility.”
With that said, I worry that credibility can be a white whale that, once found and caught, quickly becomes, in some respects, worse than an albatross around the neck. Mixing of the metaphors aside, my concerns about credibility wrongly emphasized center around a singular principle with multiple applications, one that I’ll explain after some key disclaimers:
None of my concerns about credibility should be taken to mean that we should neglect loving our neighbors and acting with integrity.
My concerns center around overemphasizing credibility and making it an overriding concern. I intend to close this piece with some diagnostic questions to ask when evaluating how much we value credibility.
This isn’t directed at anyone in particular (especially not who you have in mind). I’m aware of a post that’s been shared regarding credibility and has even been shared by Chris, my esteemed friend and colleague on this blog, but this is very much a matter of my thinking on the issue for a while. If I ever want to call you (yes, you, dear reader) out, you won’t have to speculate about it.
Credibility and Neutrality
To me, the key issue for Christians with reference to credibility centers around what can be called the myth of neutrality. Most basically, the myth of neutrality refers to the notion that nobody is neutral with reference to God and his rule over the universe. This notion is especially popular amongst people who adopt a presuppositional approach to apologetics, but I believe it has validity even apart from that school of thought. I affirm that neutrality is a myth in this regard because I believe that the Bible teaches that mankind is dead in sin (Ephesians 2) and that people, apart from Christ, hate God (Romans 1:30). Jesus himself teaches that people love darkness rather than light and actively avoid the light so their sins can remain hidden (John 3:19–20). Simply put, those outside of Christ want him to stay far away. This is not to say that all non-Christians everywhere are as rabidly anti-Christian as possible, of course, but rather that it shouldn’t surprise us when non-Christians resist and even resent the Christian message or its implications.
The myth of neutrality is important because it’s a prevalent myth. Apart from misanthropes and persons with specific neuroses, we tend not to think of ourselves or others as taking sides in grand spiritual conflicts, much less the wrong side. Yet, outside of Christ we are described as enemies of God (Romans 5:10) and Jesus offers two difficult dictums: “Whoever is not with me is against me,” (Matthew 12:30) and “Whoever is not against us is for us.” (Mark 9:40) Much can be said about those passages, especially the latter, but what’s beyond dispute is that Jesus doesn’t leave a neutral option on the table.
Three Ways Non-Neutrality Affects Credibility
Knowing that no one is neutral has implications for how we consider credibility. In particular, three pitfalls come to mind:
“You’re not supposed to fight back.”
During World War 1, the German military objected to the use of shotguns by the US military and threatened to execute soldiers captured with them. During the same war, German soldiers fielded flamethrowers and triangle bayonets, which made their complaint dubious at best. Avoiding getting bogged down in the politics of war, the German military would’ve complained about any weapon, provided that it worked, and the reason for that is simple: the Germans weren’t neutral. They wanted to win, and removing your opponent’s ability to fight back is often key to winning. Applied to the present question, sometimes, the problem isn’t that you lack credibility. The problem is that you’re engaging someone that doesn’t want you to “fight back” in the first place. This is especially true for hot-button issues.
“You have nothing that I want and much that I don’t.”
Years ago in a class on contemporary issues in church life and operation, my professor asked my classmates and I to each come up with lists of ways to bring in younger demographics. I’d love to say that we all had profound suggestions about community outreach and the like, but that was hardly the case. While I’m sure that good suggestions were made and escaped my memory, what I do remember is that creature comforts were a common theme. Granted, I have nothing against such things, but an obvious problem resents itself. Coffee and donuts don’t make people who hate God suddenly reassess their feelings. More relevant to the discussion at hand, credibility can only go so far in taking a person from being dead in sin to being alive in Christ. A person who wants nothing to do with Christ won’t be won over to him so simply.
”If not now, when?”
Often, the idea of credibility is presented in terms of immediate use versus long-term planning and prioritization. “Don’t waste your credibility now, use it when it counts.” There is wisdom to this sentiment, certainly. There is value in picking your battles wisely and choosing the right hills to die on at the right time. However, there are two questions that come to mind, one of which has already been plainly stated. If now (or immediately) isn’t the time to use one’s credibility, when should one do so? Is there some indeterminate point at which one’s credibility accrues interest sufficient to bring to bear? Further, if an issue isn’t worth spending credibility on now, would it be later? Obviously, we can, and should, prioritize both how and when we approach an issue, but I worry that, if we’re not careful, “not yet” can become “never.”
Have I Made Credibility an Idol?
If it’s possible to underemphasize our credibility or recklessly undermine it, it’s equally possible to overemphasize or idolize the same. As such, we should take care that our understandable concerns about credibility don’t override other equal or greater concerns. I find a few key questions helpful here:
When an issue or question arises, how do I approach it? Do I focus on framing a response in a palatable way first and foremost rather than my response being Christlike and true?
In an argument or discussion, do I nuance myself to death? In other words, do I make so many clarifications and distinctions that my point gets lost in the mix? (Note that this is distinct from struggling with clarity and organization or not being sure where you fall on an issue)
Especially regarding evangelism, where do I believe the power lies? Do I, based on what I say and do, believe that I’m the one who changes a person’s heart, or do I believe that God is the one who changes hearts and minds?
In closing, I want to make a very brief comment on a passage that periodically gets brought up regarding credibility. “Make yourself an example of good works with integrity and dignity in your teaching. Your message is to be sound beyond reproach, so that any opponent will be ashamed, because he doesn’t have anything bad to say about us.” (Titus 2:7–8, CSB) Obviously, I lack the ability and desire to disagree with Paul here. Christians ought to be bastions of integrity and soundness in how we conduct ourselves. With that said, we should also know that no amount of personal integrity will change a heart of stone to flesh, nor will it keep a person determined to hate God from doing exactly that. Your credibility, as important as it is, is not the most important thing you bring to the table. Instead, the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and everything it entails, is.