July 5, 2025
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If Christians want to be taken seriously on spiritual, political, or other matters, then they need to start acting more prudently in public, especially on social media platforms.
This all comes to mind in the wake of competing claims about the effectiveness of American airstrikes in Iran a few weeks ago. The bombings “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear weapon capacity, according to some. Others claim the bombings “severely damaged” it. Still others insist Iran’s nuclear capability was merely "set back by months.” For the record, I believe US President Trump made the right call to proceed with the airstrikes, irrespective of the outcome. But my point today isn’t about the effectiveness of the bombings. Rather, I want to concentrate on the media and public responses to them. Paying attention to what is being reported matters, of course, but it’s just as important to consider who is reporting it and on what basis they are reporting it in order to take our Christian commitments to truth-telling seriously. Prudence is the need of the hour, but it seems to be in short supply if the Iran airstrikes case is representative.
Let’s start with a timeline of this matter. Immediately after the airstrikes, Mr. Trump told the media that the nuclear sites in Iran were totally obliterated. A few days later, he maintained that the sites were “completely destroyed.” A few days after that, CNN (among others) cited unnamed sources who said a preliminary assessment from the Defence Intelligence Agency found that the strike “did not destroy the core components of (Iran’s) nuclear program and likely only set it back by months.” The US president and his team have been involved in a public relations push since those reports, with Mr. Trump threatening to sue CNN if it didn’t retract its report, suggesting that the reporting was “illegal.” This week, the Pentagon announced that Iran’s nuclear program had been degraded by “one to two years.”
While the US president and media squabbled, what I found most interesting was the related social media posts from respectable religious, business, and social leaders wading into the debate. Alarmingly, many condemned those who disagreed with them, accusing them of being unpatriotic either by being disloyal to the president and the military (if they took the side of the media) or by being disloyal to the US constitution and American values on the other (if they took the side of Mr. Trump).
It remains baffling to me to see those who publicly confess to be Christians present partial truths (or preliminary information) as the whole truth while summarily dismissing alternative perspectives. I realize that truth isn’t easy to determine when we’re dealing with activities that took place on the other side of an ocean and in the context of war. But if that’s the case, isn’t it our responsibility to qualify any statements we make by acknowledging our own limitations and at least leaving some space for the “other side” should our data be subsequently proven incorrect? Humility is not only more attractive than hubris, but it is also more consistent with a Christian confession.
While the matter can be dismissed as the inconsequential ramblings of online commentators whose opinions will not change the outcome of the conflict in any way, I believe it’s much more significant than that. It matters greatly when ordained ministers, business leaders, and other “respectable” folk lose public credibility because of their ill-advised online exchanges. In some cases, their social media posts appear to be the result of naïveté; in others, ideological blindness seems to be at play. In all cases, questionable political postings cost these folks credibility. Having read them, it’s now more difficult to take them seriously in their “day jobs” as a result of online commentary that betrays an imprudent way of thinking (even among those whose conclusions I share).
Dictionary definitions of prudence refer to an “ability to govern and discipline oneself” along with the use of “skill and good judgment.” For those concerned about a Christian witness in the public square, I wonder if an increased focus on prudence, rather than positions or outcomes, might be the call of our hour.
Let’s consider the media for a moment. I won’t detail the well-discussed trends on how the traditional media model—with advertising revenues sustaining the collection and distribution of news to the public based on journalistic norms and standards—no longer works in a digital world. Much of the information we receive today has not undergone the rigorous editorial process that was the standard a decade or two ago. There is a lot more opinion than reporting available because opinion is cheaper to produce. While bias has always been a factor (no publisher was ever keen to publish material that would embarrass their advertisers or would close doors to future information), the boundaries have been stretched considerably.
All of this serves as a reminder that if we want to be credible commentators in the public square, putting forward opinions that our neighbours might consider seriously, we must act prudently when it comes to news and news consumption. There are several key considerations worth keeping in mind:
So, coming back to the airstrikes in Iran, it seems naïve to have accepted President Trump’s “totally obliterated” argument, especially in light of the intensity with which he sought to stifle opposing views. I was able to believe the president after his media conference on June 21, the evening of the bombings. I’m no military expert, but dropping 360,000 pounds of bombs could credibly have been as effective as Mr. Trump claimed. On the “other side,” Iran predictably minimized the damage. Given the character of the regimes, as much as Donald Trump is not known for his honesty, Iran is even less credible. But when CNN’s reports came with a minimalist damage conclusion within days, one has to ask how reliable any immediate preliminary assessment of damage is without reliable sources on the ground in Iran. In fairness, the fine print of the reporting indicated some provisos, although the “low confidence” nature of the report certainly did not get prominent play. Still, the intensity with which those who oppose President Trump repeated the minimalist claims was at least suspicious.
Two weeks later, we end up with the Pentagon providing an official report that falls between the two original claims and seems much more credible. However, President Trump refuses to accept it publicly and continues to attempt to bully those who differ from his “obliteration” hyperbole. Sadly, my social media feed continues to include many who parrot the lines from both pro- and anti-Trump folks, sadly communicating in a manner that is more of a witness to their partisanship than to their Christian identity.
Both the story of media decline and the international conflict in the Middle East are complex and consequential issues that deserve thoughtful reflection. Coming to a confident assessment of exactly what is happening on the ground in Iran will always be complicated. So, I don’t expect those of us in North America to get it right with confidence every time. However, it does seem reasonable to expect North American Christians to communicate about all issues, but especially ones as significant as a war that is taking the lives of fellow image-bearers of God, with a level of prudence that makes their perspectives plausible. While there are thankfully some exceptions, for the most part, prudence seems remarkably in short supply these days.
WHAT I’M READING
Dangers of Outcome Bias
The foregoing Ray’s Take was prompted by reading Dan Gardner’s Substack on outcome bias. My response focused on prudence rather than outcome bias, but Gardner’s take is more nuanced than that, and he raised multiple essential points that got me thinking. Plus, I want to give a hat-tip and credit where credit is due.
Interprovincial Free Trade
Much has been made of the long-overdue reduction of internal trade barriers. RBC estimates that removing these barriers could lead to GDP growth of between 3% and 8%. Several legislative changes have been enacted over the past few months. However, several reports this past week highlight that these changes only provide a path of possibility; they do not in themselves achieve change, which will largely come from marketplace response. Daniel Schwanen at the C.D. Howe Institute provided a very useful analysis in April, highlighting many of the specific opportunities that are in play, including labour mobility.
Christian and Jewish Leaders Combating Anti-Semitism
Father Raymond de Souza reported on a meeting in Toronto last week in which 50 rabbis and 50 pastors met in Toronto in the context of growing antisemitism in Canada. Spearheaded by my Cardus colleague, Fr. Deacon Andrew Bennett, and organized in partnership with several organizations, the event challenged all to reflect on their own theological beliefs as they relate to human dignity and to consider what the application of those principles means in the present context.
Teaching Civic Friendship
Professors Robert George and Cornel West disagree on many things but have made “civic friendship” and engagement with those who differ a focal point of their co-authored work. In a recent opinion column, they pointed out that universities bear both significant culpability for the present sad state of affairs and a role to play in fixing it. “A university culture of civic friendship is one in which faculty and students recognize, and act consistently with the recognition, that reasonable people of goodwill can respectfully disagree about controversial—indeed, even the most important, life-defining, and identity-forming—questions… A university genuinely committed to the disinterested pursuit of truth would never permit external actors—from protesters and activists to donors and government agents—to influence how it treats holders of widely criticized views, whether those views are popularly mocked as supposedly ‘unenlightened’ or slandered as ‘bigoted.’”
MEANINGFUL METRICS
Social media brought to my attention the remarkable economic success story of Botswana. I don’t know the story well, and I am sure there is detail I’m missing, but the basics are that Botswana is booming. Why? In contrast to neighbouring African countries, Botswana welcomed private enterprise rather than relying on the government to translate its natural mineral resources into economic prosperity. There’s a growing sense that Botswana’s government is more democratic and accountable than most of its peers, with an independent judiciary that generally upholds the rule of law. The Global State of Democracy ranks it mid-range. Botswana is being studied as a “success story.” While the natural advantage of significant diamond reserves is certainly a factor, the southern African country stands apart from others that had comparable natural advantages.
TAKE IT TO-GO
After spending Canada Day watching the Blue Jays beat the Yankees, I was trying to figure out a way to pun about a 150’ x 300’ flag, unfurled on the field by 250 members of the military (and the Blue Jay players) for the national anthem. The ceremony, complete with a fly-by of two CF-18 jets, was patriotically cool, but the pun pitches I came up with were all out of the zone. Don’t judge me! I’m not about to intentionally walk Take It To-Go. However, the presence of the Yankees reminded me of Yogi Berra and his delightful use of language. So, I figured some Yogi-isms might be suitable relief as we approach baseball’s midsummer classic.
So “having come to a fork in the road, I’ll take it.” I’m too young to remember Yogi as a catcher, but he was the quotable Yankee manager when I was a kid, reminding us that “if you don’t know where you are going, you might end up someplace else.” He was right in noting that “you can observe a lot just by watching,” something that is as true now as then, even though “a nickel ain't worth a dime anymore.” My consecutive weekly punning streak is like most records: “they will stand until they are broken,” as Yogi observed. I’ll try not to get carried away, lest I “make too many wrong mistakes.” Which brings me to the last pitch of the week. If you didn’t like it, I’ll quote Yogi who said, “I never said most of the things I said.” I do remind all of you, however, that we’ll be back in your inbox next Saturday morning when “it will be déjà vu all over again.”
Enjoy your first week of July. Yogi, we miss you. Go Jays Go.