Lessons from a couple of great scholars like Professor Brainard the inventor of Flubber and Dr. Quick Draw McGraw:

I just read Al Mohler's apology and explanation about his former support of C. J. Mahaney, of Sovereign Grace Ministries.
I read Dr. Mohler's piece at a time when several sources of input are coalescing into a general caution in my consciousness. Let me explain.
We live in a day that discourages investigation and contemplation. The instant comment or retort is highly admired. If you think about something too long, and "too long" can be as little as the proverbial "sleep on it," you'll lose your place in the discussion.  It's like commenting, while on a road trip, about something you noticed an hour ago. The rest of the travelers are already into the scenery that presents itself NOW. Right or wrong, some people praise me by telling me that I think well on my feet. The desire to live up to that approbation makes what I'm talking about a particular temptation for me.
To give a very unscientific explanation, it seems that our minds work according to a set of unseen algorithms. When a piece of "news" is introduced into the marvelous computer known as my brain, it first passes through a set of rudimentary filters: 

• Do I agree or disagree?
• Do I like or dislike?
• Is this about friend or foe?
• Is there potential in this news to help or hurt me?
• etc., etc..

Somewhere there is a blinking light that says, "Check it out"



But like the conscience that can be seared (1 Tim. 4:2), that warning light has been dimmed or hidden by clutter. The need for speedy response tends to make the pulsating warning more of a nuisance than a caution.
"I know something people need to know." or,
"I need to protect this good person who is being treated badly." or,
"This is so right I need to put my "AMEN!" in the comment stream."
I may even breathe a prayer. "Lord, please let my comment/blog-post/tweet/email to my loyal readers show up before Dr. Big-Name's." 
I don't want to impute my faulty reasoning to another so I'll simply quote Dr. Mohler,  "I deeply regret this. I frankly was not equipped to sift through the allegations and did not grasp the situation, and I am responsible for that and for not seeking the counsel of those who were." 
If the President of Southern Seminary, with a capable staff of researches to work with, is not equipped, what chance do we mere mortals have?
I'm going to try to avoid doing what I'm saying not to do, but consider the Jussie Smollett episode. I have no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong--that's a big part of the point of this post--but I figure a foreign news agency is my best hope for objectivity. The BBC gives an overview of what allegedly happened.  That word, "allegedly," deserves a comment. In the brief article, I counted about 15 times that words like alleged, reported, he said were used.  This kind of self-protective language has become ludicrous.

Journalist Harris Sherline says, "'Alleged' has become perhaps the most overworked and misused word in the American lexicon. His article,  goes on to ask, ". . . does using the word 'alleged' in every reference to a crime really protect the rights of the accused . . .?" I'll confess my bias. I think it often has more to do with protecting the writer than anyone else. 
But getting back to the alleged Smollett incident, when it was first reported, folk with one view of the way things are responded with outrage in one direction. Then when the police were reported to have alleged that Mr. Smollett faked this so-called attack, others with a different view of the world jumped on their own bandwagon and proceeded down the information superhighway with the volume at deafening. Let the dust settle? If I do that, I'll be seen as not appropriately outraged. We even have a new term for it, virtue signaling--the conspicuous expression of moral values. No one wants to be seen on the wrong side of history (look it up), and since history is constantly being made and just as quickly being forgotten I need to make my view known quickly. Since the virtue that folk are signaling varies from one side to the other this game can be like playing ping-pong with a ball made of flubber (Boy, I'm showing my age on that one.) Some online commenters will actually shame others because they were too slow to draw their virtue-signaling six-gun.

I like Dr. Mohler. His writings have been helpful to me. I appreciate his apology, not only because it appears to be (there I go) a sincere attempt to do the right thing, but because it is instructive. 
With the clarity of hindsight, Dr. Mohler says, "I did not even grasp the context I was speaking into." 
How many times have I been guilty of that--not allegedly guilty, but guilty? The answer is many times.
He points out as well that his earlier statement was made on the basis of wrong information. " I did not realize until this past year. . . . When this issue resurfaced a year ago, I was made painfully aware of my serious mistakes."
My late Father frequently said to me, "Now son, let that be a lesson to you." I pray that it will be, not only to me, to Dr. Mohler, but to those of you who allegedly read my blog.