What if WikiLeaks published my conversations?

Stan Jantz — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:47:01 -0800

This whole WikiLeaks business has a bunch of world leaders in a lather, and it's pretty interesting to watch. The private descriptions of various presidents, prime ministers and dictators are especially revealing and rather entertaining. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is called "feckless, vain and inneffictive as a modern European leader." Hamid Karzai is considered "an extremely weak man," Kim Jong Il (my favorite) is a "flabby old chap," and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is "just strange."

No doubt there is content in the WikiLeaks cables that could prove to be dangerous to national and world security, but so far most people (political leaders excluded) seem indifferent to the whole rather bizarre affair. Indeed, a public opinion poll is split 50/50 on the issue of whether WikiLeaks has the right to publish documents that could threaten national security.

That was me--kind of indifferent and mildly amused--until something about WikiLeaks hit me right where it hurts. What if WikiLeaks were to publish my private conversations? Not about world leaders, mind you, but about people I know and interact with on a regular basis. Would I be embarrassed, and would the targets of my verbal jousts be offended?

Without going back over my conversations in the past few weeks, I would have to say that there would most assuredly be embarrassment and offense, certainly nothing that would threaten national security, but definitely something that could undermine friendships and worse, grieve the Lord.

It just so happens that I am currently studying the first chapter of the book of James, where there is a rather direct statement about those who fail to "bridle" the tongue. "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless" (James 1:26). This is the only place in the New Testament where the word "religion" appears. Forget about any notion that James is talking about the institutional church. In this context, "religion" means the set of beliefs people put into practice. In effect, James is saying that the beliefs in our heads that do not influence our hearts and therefore our actions are useless.

When I say things about people--in private or in public--that are critical and sarcastic rather than "always full of grace" (Col. 4:6), I am demonstrating that my beliefs in the one true God are useless. It doesn't matter if other people don't find out what I say about them. God hears everything I say, in private or in public, whether I verbalize my words or merely think them.

So the question I should be concerned about is not, "What if WikiLeaks published my conversations?" As embarrassing as that would be, I need to focus on a much bigger question and a much more important Source. I may be indifferent to WikiLeaks and not suffer any consequences, but I better pay close attention to GodLeaks if I know what's good for me.

mouth math

Alicia Britt Chole — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:00:42 -0800

A link to my personal blog for a family lesson on mouth math.

Peace,

alicia

speech

What if WikiLeaks published my conversations?

mouth math