Program / Course 24: Apologetic Practicum / Lesson 3.3
What you will learn
- Define bad-faith engagement and distinguish it from honest disagreement and from hostility.
- Name common signs of bad faith in spoken and written conversation.
- Avoid accusing people of bad faith too quickly.
- Check your own conduct for bad-faith habits.
The big idea
Bad-faith engagement is taking part in a conversation without any real intention of listening, learning or being persuaded. The person may want to win, to provoke, to gather quotations, to perform for an audience or to waste your time. Recognizing it protects you from endless fruitless effort. But the label is dangerous. It is easy to call a person a bad-faith actor when they merely disagree sharply. A careful apologist looks for patterns over time, treats the charge as a judgment of behavior and not of the heart, and examines their own conduct first.
Key terms
- Good faith
- Honest intention to understand and to be understood, and a willingness to be corrected.
- Bad faith
- Engagement in which the speaker does not intend honest exchange, even if they appear to.
- Troll
- An online participant who posts to provoke a reaction instead of to discuss.
- Sealioning
- Persistent requests for evidence and explanation, framed politely, in order to exhaust or harass. The term comes from a webcomic and is used in online discussion.
- Gish gallop
- Overwhelming an opponent with many weak claims too quickly to answer. Named for a debater of that name.
- Moving the goalposts
- Changing what counts as satisfactory evidence after the earlier standard has been met.
- Judging motives
- Claiming to know what a person intends inwardly, which humans can rarely do with certainty.
Background
Scripture speaks of those who ask questions in order to trap. The Gospels describe religious leaders who came to test Jesus (Matthew 22:15 and 22:18), and Jesus knew their malice. Proverbs warns that one who is wise in his own conceit will not listen (Proverbs 26:12). Paul tells Titus to avoid foolish questions and contentions, and to reject a divisive person after a first and second admonition (Titus 3:9 and 3:10).
The Book of Acts shows a range of reactions to Paul’s preaching. At Athens some mocked, some said they would hear him again and some believed (Acts 17:32 and 17:34). The pattern suggests that responses differ, and that the right action depends on the person.
The same texts also warn against judgment. Jesus says not to judge lest you be judged (Matthew 7:1), and Paul says that only God sees the hearts (1 Corinthians 4:5). Hence the care needed. A person may behave in ways that make honest dialogue impossible without it being your task to say what is in their heart. Describe behavior, not souls.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Begin with a presumption of good faith
Treat people as honest until their conduct shows otherwise, as in the principle of charity. Most people who disagree with you are not acting in bad faith. They are often tired, frightened, defensive or poorly informed.
A presumption of good faith costs little. It also makes it more likely that others will respond to you in kind.
Step 2: Watch for patterns
One rude remark is not bad faith. A pattern is more telling. Common signs include: repeatedly ignoring your answers and restating the same question; changing the subject whenever a point is lost; moving the goalposts; demanding evidence and rejecting every kind offered; flooding the conversation with many claims; quoting you out of context; misrepresenting your words after correction; and treating the exchange as a performance for onlookers.
Another sign is a refusal to say what would change their mind. Someone who admits no possible evidence is not asking a question but making a speech.
Step 3: Test with a clear, fair request
Before concluding that bad faith is present, test it. Ask: ‘What would you accept as good evidence on this point?’ or ‘Can you restate my view so I know I have been clear?’ A person in good faith will usually answer. A person in bad faith will deflect.
You may also correct a misrepresentation once, politely, and see whether it is repeated.
Step 4: Describe behavior, not hearts
If you decide to name the problem, speak about conduct: ‘This conversation has gone around three times, and the same question keeps returning without engaging with my answers.’ Avoid ‘You are a liar’ or ‘You are a troll.’ You cannot see a person’s heart, and accusation usually ends the possibility of any good exchange.
Privately, in your own thinking, remember that you can be wrong. People who seem hostile sometimes have reasons you do not know.
Step 5: Examine yourself
Ask whether you have done any of these things: ignored a good point, changed the subject, quoted unfairly, argued for an audience or asked a question you did not want answered. Most people have. Naming such habits in yourself is a matter of honesty and also a protection against the pride of thinking only the other side is at fault.
Keep a short list of your own warning signs, such as irritability, a need to have the last word or a wish to impress onlookers.
- What pattern of behavior, not a single remark, makes me think the conversation is not in good faith?
- Have I tested my impression with a clear, fair request?
- Can I describe what I see without judging the person’s heart?
- Is it possible that I have misread this person?
- Have I ever acted in these ways myself?
- What would I want a critic to do if I seemed to be acting in bad faith?
Examples
Moving the goalposts
A critic says no early source mentions Jesus outside the Bible. A source is offered. The critic says it is too late. A second source is offered, and the critic says it is not independent. Each time the standard rises. If no standard is ever stated in advance, bad faith is possible, though a careful historian might also have reasons for each objection. (Constructed example.)
Testing the situation
A participant in a forum asks one challenging question after another, politely, and never responds to any answer. A believer asks, ‘What kind of answer would you find convincing?’ The reply is another question. After two such exchanges, the believer concludes that the exchange is not productive. (Constructed example.)
A mistaken accusation
A new acquaintance keeps pressing a challenge in a blunt style. The believer decides she is a hostile troll, but later learns the person was raised in a harsh church and spoke bluntly because the questions mattered to him. The first impression was wrong. (Constructed example.)
Different perspectives
Scriptural and patristic teaching (shared)
The New Testament distinguishes between those who ask in earnest and those who test with malice, and it also forbids rash judgment. Early writers such as Justin and Origen answered hostile critics seriously but sometimes noted the critic’s unfairness.
Catholic thought
The Catechism treats rash judgment as a sin against the truth, which includes assuming without proof the moral fault of a neighbor. Catholic teaching also recognizes that one may avoid fruitless disputes.
Orthodox thought
Orthodox ascetic writers warn against passing judgment on others and advise attending to one’s own faults. Many saints recommend silence in the face of contentious people.
Protestant thought
Protestants cite Titus 3:10 and Matthew 7:6 as guidance on avoiding fruitless argument, while recalling Matthew 7:1 on judgment. The balance between these texts is a subject of discussion among preachers and commentators.
Scholarly and secular view
Researchers on online behavior describe patterns such as trolling and brigading, and note that some people deliberately provoke. They also note that people often attribute bad faith to those who simply disagree, which makes accusations unreliable.
Why it matters
Time and attention are limited, and a conversation in bad faith can take large amounts of both. Knowing the signs lets you stop at the right moment. But the same knowledge can be misused to dismiss honest critics. The lesson’s balance is to presume good faith, watch for patterns and describe behavior without condemning hearts.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Anyone who disagrees strongly is acting in bad faith.
Correction: Strong disagreement can be wholly honest. Bad faith concerns intention to engage, not intensity or conclusion.
Misunderstanding: I can tell what is in a person’s heart.
Correction: Scripture says only God sees the heart (1 Corinthians 4:5). Judge conduct, and hold your judgment loosely.
Misunderstanding: Calling out bad faith is always necessary.
Correction: Often it is better to say nothing and stop. Naming bad faith can escalate conflict and rarely changes anyone’s behavior.
Misunderstanding: Only opponents act in bad faith.
Correction: Believers can act in bad faith too, for example by arguing for an audience or avoiding questions they cannot answer. Honest self-examination is required.
Knowledge check
What is bad-faith engagement?
It is taking part in a conversation without any real intention to listen, learn or be persuaded, while appearing to do so. The aim may be to provoke, to win for an audience or to waste time. It differs from honest disagreement, which may be sharp but is sincere.
Name four signs of bad faith.
Examples include ignoring answers and repeating the same question, moving the goalposts, flooding the discussion with many weak claims, misquoting after correction, refusing to say what evidence would count and performing for onlookers. Any four, or similar ones, are correct. A pattern matters more than a single instance.
Why should you describe behavior and not hearts?
Because people cannot reliably see another’s motives, and Scripture warns against rash judgment (Matthew 7:1; 1 Corinthians 4:5). Describing behavior, such as repeated repeating of a question, is more accurate and less inflammatory, and it leaves room for the possibility that you are mistaken.
How can you test for bad faith before concluding it is present?
Ask a clear, fair request: what evidence would you accept, or can you restate my view. Correct any misrepresentation once, politely. If the person responds honestly, good faith is likely. If they deflect repeatedly, the pattern becomes clearer.
Why should you examine your own conduct?
Because believers are as capable as anyone of arguing for show, dodging hard points or quoting unfairly. Noticing these habits in yourself is honest and humbling, and it prevents you from using the label of bad faith only against others.
Think it through
- Have you ever been accused of bad faith unfairly? What did it feel like?
- In what circumstances are you most likely to argue for an audience rather than for the truth?
- How can you hold both Titus 3:10 and Matthew 7:1 together?
- What are your own warning signs that you have stopped listening?
Independent assignment
Signs and self-check
In your own notebook, write 400 to 600 words. First, make a list of ten signs of bad-faith engagement in your own words. Then recall a real conversation, online or in person, in which you suspected bad faith, and describe the behavior you saw (without naming the person). Say what test you could have used, what you would conclude and how sure you are. Finally, list three of your own habits that could look like bad faith to others. Keep this private.
Further study
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies Review the entries on shifting the question and on appeals to ignorance, which often appear in bad-faith exchanges.
- Justin Martyr, The First Apology Observe how Justin appeals to fair judgment from unfriendly rulers.
- John Cassian, The Conferences Read selectively on discernment and self-examination.
- Titus 3:10 A divisive man after the first and second admonition.
- Matthew 22:18 Jesus perceives the wickedness of those who test him.
- Matthew 7:1 Judge not.
- 1 Corinthians 4:5 Judge nothing before the time.