Brother Michel Lankford

The difference between good and bad faith circles around the idea of INTENT.

What was your motive? What was your Intent? What was your Desire; when you said what you said or when you did what you did?

If your motive, your intent, your desire, what you said, and what you did was true and agreeable to the character of YHWH and Messiah; if it was true to the facts; and if it was true to your claims, then you acted in good faith. If these realities are not there, then you acted in bad faith. It’s that simple.

For example: News anchor Walter Cronkite had a saying in the newsroom. Get the news fast, but above all, get it accurate, and get it right. He was so ethical, that at some point he even delayed getting news reports out there, because he wanted to get every major news event confirmed by independent and multiple sources. Most famously he refused to report on the death of John F. Kennedy, even coming behind other news sources, because he was determined to get the information confirmed by multiple independent sources before he delivered it to the public. That decision made his career. People knew that he would do his best to make sure that the information he gave them was accurate. For a while he was considered the most trusted man in America. He also had the habit of making sure that multiple points of view were discussed, and letting the viewer draw the conclusion, instead of pushing a conclusion down their throat. He gave both sides of an issue as dispassionately as he could, but he allowed the viewer to make up his mind about which side they would believe. He delivered the news focusing on the facts and not the conclusions that he wanted the audience to draw. He delivered the news, “In GOOD Faith.”

Today, most news anchors, (whether they are conservatives or leftists) have an agenda. Their goal is to push their own point of view and give high pressure to try to get you to agree with them. They are no longer news anchors. They are propagandists, while they still PRETEND to have the ethics and integrity of legitimate journalists. They are in reality only glorified publicists for one side or the other. That is a crystal clear example of delivering the news in BAD faith.

For example: When a judge faithfully listens to both sides of an argument and makes a decision based on the Constitution of the United States and laws that are passed by the legislature, and he decides the case based on WRITTEN law, that is an example of a judge acting in good faith. He took an oath to do exactly that. He took an oath to make his decisions according to the Constitution and the law as it is written, regardless of whether he personally favors that law or not. That is a good faith acting judge.

Conversely, when a judge has a strong ideology and he makes is legal decisions in a way that he tries to change public policy instead of making his decision based on what the Constitution and written law physically says; if he is pushing his own political agenda to the point where he is violating his constitutional authority to do that, he is acting in bad faith. He is a bad faith acting judge. That’s because he’s acting contrary to defending the Constitution and the law, which is the oath that he swore that he would do.

For example: A good faith investigator is a passionate pursuer of the facts and the truth of the situation is supreme above all. A good faith investigator pursues the facts and provable evidence above anything else. Wherever the facts of the situation and the provable evidence leads, the investigator allows those things to determine his conclusions.

Conversely, a bad faith investigator is one who begins with a particular conclusion or a desired outcome in his mind and he begins to pursue the investigation and only track down those leads that agree with his preconceived conclusion or that agree with his desired outcome. That would be a bad faith investigator. He is not pursuing facts and truth at that point. He is not pursuing justice at that point. He is using his powers as an investigator only to pursue the outcome that he personally favors, whether or not the facts truly support his conclusions. That investigator is acting in bad faith.

For Example: When you enter into agreement with another person, and it is your true intent to fully and completely fulfill your part of the bargain to the best of your ability; when you don’t fudge or lie or twist the truth to gain an unfair advantage in the agreement, and when you fully do what you promise to do, then you have entered into an agreement in GOOD faith.On the other hand, when you stretch the truth, when you twist the truth you fudge, or you lie to gain an unfair advantage; when you make promises that you don’t fully intend to keep in order to get the other person to agree to something that they might not otherwise agree to; or when you do a half-baked job of keeping your part of an agreement, and you do not fully do what you promised to do, then you are acting in bad faith when it comes to that agreement.

I hope that this helps.


Categories: Get Answers