Should Christians be tattletales?

[abcgrad94]

As Christians, do we have a responsibility to report wrong? Here's a few scenarios from real life:

1. You have an co- worker that uses the office copier to produce lesson copies for his church Sunday School class. The boss does not know this. The co-worker does this on a weekly basis and when you mention it to him privately, he said you it's for a good cause and besides, he can always work an extra 5 minutes overtime to "pay" for it.

2. You're in a group that has booked reservations for a conference room and adjoining rooms in a hotel. One of your party decides to let a stray cat come into the conference room because it's cold outside, even though the hotel clearly has rules against this. When members of your party complain of cat allergies, the cat lover decides to keep said stray cat in her hotel room until the conference is over, then take the animal home with her. Do you inform the hotel manager?

3. Your neighbor has a friend who works for the cable company. You find out the neighbor does not pay for cable, but instead had his friend "piggyback" the connecting wires into someone else's so he can have free cable tv. Do you rat on him?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

As Christians, do we have a responsibility to report wrong? Here's a few scenarios from real life:

1. You have an co- worker that uses the office copier to produce lesson copies for his church Sunday School class. The boss does not know this. The co-worker does this on a weekly basis and when you mention it to him privately, he said you it's for a good cause and besides, he can always work an extra 5 minutes overtime to "pay" for it.

2. You're in a group that has booked reservations for a conference room and adjoining rooms in a hotel. One of your party decides to let a stray cat come into the conference room because it's cold outside, even though the hotel clearly has rules against this. When members of your party complain of cat allergies, the cat lover decides to keep said stray cat in her hotel room until the conference is over, then take the animal home with her. Do you inform the hotel manager?

3. Your neighbor has a friend who works for the cable company. You find out the neighbor does not pay for cable, but instead had his friend "piggyback" the connecting wires into someone else's so he can have free cable tv. Do you rat on him?

In all cases, refer to Matthew 18:15-17. If he/she isn't a member of your church but another, make sure at least one of the "two or three witnesses" is from his/her church.

 

[Revmitchell]

No........................

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

In all cases, refer to Matthew 18:15-17. If he/she isn't a member of your church but another, make sure at least one of the "two or three witnesses" is from his/her church.

Matt 18:

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

So in which of the three cases did the "brother" trespass against you?

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

My answer would be no, we have no responsibility to be "tattletales."

My own rule of thumb is to ask myself if someone is being hurt or is someone in danger?

 

[saturneptune]

No, Christians should not be tattletales. It is usually a corridor to gossip, which local churches never address. The purpose of any situation like this is restoration, not the joy of gossip or punishment.

When someone comes up to me with a story like this, it takes a few seconds to determine its two possible purposes, gossip or restoration as described in Matthew 18. Usually it is the former, and I dismiss the comment and walk away.

 

[salzer mtn]

This is snitching on someone plain and simple. People that rat on people for small stuff that is mentioned in the OP do so for one reason, to get the other guy in trouble. In the prison system a snitch is considered one of the lowest form of a dog, they are marked. In the area where I live snitching on someone can get you in deep trouble fast. Where I live people live by the code, mind your own business.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

LOL....my dear mother was an Italian and to those people there is a code of conduct you follow ....(1.) Respect your elders. (2.) Family first. (3.) Keep your mouth shut...ie if you don't know what your talking about, then shut up; mind your own business & NEVER RAT OUT ANYONE. But make sure you handle it privately....what goes around comes around and revenge is a dish best served up cold are big with that type. Oh and, onyour way home pick up some cannolies. NOT KIDDING....LOL

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

So in which of the three cases did the "brother" trespass against you?

The first words of v. 15 are "If your brother sins ... " without further qualification. Doesn't say "against you." Doesn't say "against the cable company." It says, "If your brother sins ... " Period.

What does that tell you?

 

[sag38]

I might report the stealing of cable because that person is sinning not only against the cable company but everyone who purchases cable services the legal way. Thieves shoplifting cable services can cause problems for the overall system. It causes the cable company to have to spend extra to prevent such occurrences and guess who gets to absorb those extra costs? Hint: you and me

 

[salzer mtn]

My county steals from me every year in the form of taxing me for my farm. We don't have a wheel tax so the loafers go free while land owners have to foot the bill for the county government. Every one is on the take. I should get to vote ten times in a county election and these loafers not get one vote. As the Italians say, forget about it.

 

[saturneptune]

For example, if I knew a church member was cheating on his or her spouse, I would NOT go to the spouse. I would go the offending party, and follow the example in Matthew. Going to the spouse is nothing but gossip, and will destroy the marriage, and maybe children are involved.

As Baptists, it is our sacred duty to declare war on gossip and stop worrying so much about the lottery tickets, drinking, and what movies we watch. There is nothing that makes me angrier than a gossip.

 

[abcgrad94]

My answer would be no, we have no responsibility to be "tattletales."

My own rule of thumb is to ask myself if someone is being hurt or is someone in danger?

I like this answer and I think most of us here would agree.

 

[abcgrad94]

As Baptists, it is our sacred duty to declare war on gossip and stop worrying so much about the lottery tickets, drinking, and what movies we watch. There is nothing that makes me angrier than a gossip.

Amen, SN.

So, at what point should a person get involved? Obviously if child abuse is involved, or there is a real threat of danger. It's something we should think about, because we've already been told "if you see something, say something." I'm seeing this mentality more and more, and it concerns me. Maybe in bigger cities it's no big deal, but in my area, everybody and their brother wants to know ALL your business, and what they don't know, they will make up.

 

[Sapper Woody]

There's a difference between tattletelling, and "telling on' someone. Most of it has to do with motivation.

In the first case, I'd give the person an ultimatum. Tell them to stop stealing (and it IS stealing) or you'll tell. You have an obligation to protect your employer's interests. This includes things like this.

In the second case, it is not harming anyone. I'd leave that alone. If the cat did any damage, they'd be personally liable anyway.

In the third case, absolutely. They are stealing outright. I couldn't condone their sin (which in this case also harms someone; the cable company) by remaining silent. I look at it this way: would I want someone to tell me if someone were stealing from me?

Now, I do believe in handling all these in the smallest way possible. Only escalate it to the point that you have to in order to resolve the problem.

In the first and last cases, someone is clearly sinning. To remain silent is to condone their sin, and enable it.

 

[Gina B]

Wow, I'm surprised someone would think an allergy would be harmless, but I guess if one hasn't dealt with severe ones, they wouldn't really know.
An allergy, especially if the exposure is unknown, could potentially end up very serious with lung infections, pneumonia, loss of working time, medical bills, and even put the person into shock and sensitize them to other things and medications. Your body, if repeatedly exposed to something your allergic to, builds up this stuff in your blood and your body starts over reacting to other things, and getting sensitive to things you never had a problem with before.
Allergies just aren't something to mess with. Some are very severe. Hours upon hours of exposure will likely leave a highly allergic person suffering for a good time after and end up, at the least, with some major discomfort and medical bills. My daughter can tolerate a few hours of exposure but then suffers a few days of icky symptoms after. Anymore than that and it ends up being a lung infection for her, and she is extremely healthy otherwise!

It really makes no sense to let that happen to someone.

Someone's allergic to peanuts. You know it. Someone sneaks peanuts into their food. Do you tell? WELL YEAH! Just because a cat allergy is slower doesn't mean it is okay. And some peanut allergies are just as low as cat allergies. Just a little, because they haven't been exposed as much. So would you knowingly let someone allergic to peanuts be exposed if they hadn't been exposed very much already, because you don't want to tell and you know the reaction will not be deadly right away? LOL No...I hope.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Wow, I'm surprised someone would think an allergy would be harmless, but I guess if one hasn't dealt with severe ones, they wouldn't really know.
An allergy, especially if the exposure is unknown, could potentially end up very serious with lung infections, pneumonia, loss of working time, medical bills, and even put the person into shock and sensitize them to other things and medications. Your body, if repeatedly exposed to something your allergic to, builds up this stuff in your blood and your body starts over reacting to other things, and getting sensitive to things you never had a problem with before.
Allergies just aren't something to mess with. Some are very severe. Hours upon hours of exposure will likely leave a highly allergic person suffering for a good time after and end up, at the least, with some major discomfort and medical bills. My daughter can tolerate a few hours of exposure but then suffers a few days of icky symptoms after. Anymore than that and it ends up being a lung infection for her, and she is extremely healthy otherwise!

It really makes no sense to let that happen to someone.

Someone's allergic to peanuts. You know it. Someone sneaks peanuts into their food. Do you tell? WELL YEAH! Just because a cat allergy is slower doesn't mean it is okay. And some peanut allergies are just as low as cat allergies. Just a little, because they haven't been exposed as much. So would you knowingly let someone allergic to peanuts be exposed if they hadn't been exposed very much already, because you don't want to tell and you know the reaction will not be deadly right away? LOL No...I hope.

In response to the complaint of cat allergies, the person in question removed the cat, up to their room. I think you are missing the point of the question. It's a question about "tattling" that the person broke the rules. Not whether they were insensitive to someone else.

 

[InTheLight]

My county steals from me every year in the form of taxing me for my farm.

I guess you've never read Matthew 17:24-27.

 

[Salty]

I have been thinking about this for a while.

Suppose he only made 5 copies (still wrong)
but lets say he was making a 1,000 copies a week.
Would the number of copies make a difference as to how you would approach it?


How about this answer:

Send an Anonymous note to the supervisor expalning that someone is making unauthorized copies, albeit it is for a good cause. Reccomend that he put out a memo out mentioning that this matter will be closely monitered.

thoughts

 

[saturneptune]

Amen, SN.

So, at what point should a person get involved? Obviously if child abuse is involved, or there is a real threat of danger. It's something we should think about, because we've already been told "if you see something, say something." I'm seeing this mentality more and more, and it concerns me. Maybe in bigger cities it's no big deal, but in my area, everybody and their brother wants to know ALL your business, and what they don't know, they will make up.

It would be a judgment call. The very question you ask shouts you are not a gossip. A gossip is swift to tell without consideration of the circumstances. Of course, if a child is being abused, it is time to go to the authorities. Common sense goes a long way.