On more than one occasion I've been asked to explain what appears to be the Bible's most contradictory proverb. The absolute massacre that I just witnessed on Twitter will make that task a lot easier going forward.
The proverb in question offers this counsel:
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes." (Proverbs 26:4-5)
At first it appears as though we are being told both to not answer a fool and also to answer a fool. But there's a subtle distinction that helps this make sense. In order to avoid becoming like a fool, we should not take the bait or play the fool's game. At the same time, turning the fool's own foolishness against them, and in some cases shaming them with it, wisely humbles and prevents them from being haughty and arrogant.
An example I've used before occurred in a social media exchange I had with an attorney for the grossly unserious Freedom From Religion Foundation.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what Andrew wanted to provoke with such a tweet. He wanted believers to argue with him and tell him how the Bible isn't immoral, how it's wonderful, how it's changed them, how it's liberating, how it's God's Word, and so on. And Andrew would be ready to ridicule and mock anyone who climbed down into the mud with him. I chose not to because Proverbs tells me not to answer a fool according to his folly.
Instead, I chose to answer him in a way that pointed out his folly while not allowing him to be haughty and wise in his own eyes. Like this:
Rather than being able to mock believers for their faith, Seidel was forced into a, "Well, but, no, I didn't mean" defense. That is the wisdom of the proverb.
But after reading a tweet exchange from earlier this month, I can officially retire my back and forth with Andrew Seidel. I can't imagine a more devastating tweet response than this, nor one that embodies perfectly what these verses counsel.
It started with one of the increasingly frequent pro-trans/anti-J.K. Rowling tweets:
Poor Dani isn't pleased with all the pro-biology/pro-science activism out here and she's looking – no, she's daring – someone, anyone, to climb into the mud with her. Instead, some chap named Jelle Dekkers decided to end her:
That's game, set, match. It's a TKO of epic proportions. Dani is big mad at JK Rowling for opposing a movement that seeks to facilitate permanent, irreversible, body-alterations for young people. And with just a few keyboard strikes, Jelle Dekkers shows Dani how foolish her position is by flashing her a mirror.
Dani, if after coming into your own and thinking with a grown-up brain you regret your Harry Potter tattoos, why would you advocate for other kids to experience the same regret, except over something far more consequential than mere skin pictures?
