top of page
Scott Bullerwell

The Assault on Truth

With inflation in Canada at its highest level in decades (8.1%), even higher in the United States (9.1%), political spin (blarney actually) is the name of the game in the corridors of political power.


Many of you will remember the President, the one currently in the U.S. White House — what’s his name, said that his 3.5 trillion-dollar plan would cost “Zero”. Interestingly, his new approach to finance echoes what our third-term Prime Minister said back in 2014 that "the commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself". They did not attend the same university, as best I can figure.


Such truth-defying statements however are only the tip of the iceberg that folks are exposed to on a daily routine.

  • “Border [United States / Mexico] is secure and closed.” [DHS chief Alejandro Myorkas]

  • Rachel Levine, “Woman of the Year” [USA Today].

  • “US Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion.” [CNBC]

  • “We have heard from the Commissioner of the RCMP, police chiefs, experts and political leadership that it was essential . . . . It was only after we got advice from law enforcement that we invoked the Emergencies Act.” [Justin Trudeau].

  • “China, we don’t do this kind of thing, you know, spying, or electronic monitoring.” [Cong Peiwu, Chinese Ambassador to Canada]

  • “Nope, it wasn’t us!” [Saudi response to the claim Jamal Khashoggi was tortured and dismembered by government agents].

  • “The holocaust is not about race.” [Whoopi Goldberg]

 

Truth and news are not the same thing. Reporters typically

manipulate ‘the facts.’ Those that are honest,

manipulate ‘the facts’ and tell the truth.

 

Regrettably, this behaviour is not restricted to politicians. Heavens no! Indeed, there are plenty of examples to pull from ‘more-famous-than-Jesus’ T.V. personalities who bark their brand of religious lies to advance themselves as well. Some of these lies are monumental: Oral Roberts asked his supporters for $240 for his Medical Centre since God specifically told him “I am going to bring mighty and greater breakthroughs for the cure of cancer.” I’m still waiting! To up the ante, if supporters did not come through with the $4.5 million by March, 1987 God was going to “call you home in one year.” Oral died in 2009!


Louisiana preacher Jesse Duplantis prophetically declared “God told me” to buy a Dassault Falcon FX for $54 million … and later Creflo Dollar said it was “necessary” to buy a Gulfstream G650, priced at $65 million – the Holy Grail of luxury jets [What is it with religious leaders and jets?] The list is much longer, but I’ll resist.


Some lies are particularly strange. Consider the Catholic church claim that it was in possession of the actual foreskin of Jesus – that is, until Jesus’ foreskin went missing in 1983. No, I am not pulling your leg. The “Holy Prepuce,” one of Christianity’s most coveted-relics – vanished, taken, it seems from the village of Calcata, just north of Rome. It hardly matters that over a dozen such priceless foreskins for veneration populated Italy, France, Belgium and Germany between the 11th and 16th centuries — from the Benedictine Abby of Coulombs … to the monastery of Charroux in Poitou … to the Vatican Basilica itself — each a source of dependable riches for church coffers, I am confident. The Catholic church, with its embracive relic culture industry and its hunger for incarnations of holiness is playing with truth when it pretends that the foreskin of Jesus really does exist (along with his umbilical cord, scandals, baby teeth and fingernails) – yet purposefully keeps this ‘truth’ alive.

 

Speaking of the many vials said to be full of the Virgin Mary’s breast milk, John Calvin once pined, “Had Mary been a cow all her life, she could not have produced such a quantity.”

John Calvin, A Treatise on Relics, 1543

 

Those who still read the Older Testament will know that the history of recorded lying had its start in the Garden of Eden. There, a sly form of seduction snaked its way into the heart and mind of the couple with its ever so slight distortion of the truth – exploiting the moment with disinformation to discredit … demonize … and damn God. The Serpent bluntly lied, saying “You shall not surely die” (Genesis 3:4) while Eve misrepresented God’s words by adding “neither shall you touch it” (Genesis 3:3).

 

Like our 1st ancestors, in our drive to “be like God” (Genesis 3:5)

we forget that God-like character comes with that power.

 

Of course, not all of life is so easily managed and in a free society when moral obligations collide often, what should be the practice of the believer towards lies or telling them? What about the gray stuff?

  • Should a person lie to keep a coming birthday party secret?

  • Is it OK to post a “Beware of Dog” on the fence gate, when the only animal you have is Hermie the hamster in a cage?

  • When a person works covertly in the interests of their country, whether penetrating a biker-gang or bad players from other countries, is lying permissible?

  • And … how about credential holders within my tradition who complete their annual Credential Renewal Application yet knowingly, deliberately violate By-Law 10.6.2.2.1.3?

Abram lied about Sarah’s status as his wife (Genesis 12:12-19; 20:2-18) yet was “counted faithful” (Hebrews 11:39), even though God was irate. Isaac, like-father, like-son, tells essentially the same lie about the status of Rebekah (Genesis 26:7-11) and is also “commended” (11:39). Later, David tells Ahimelech, the high priest, that Saul has sent him (I Samuel 21), though this was a lie. Fascinatingly, later with history behind him, Luke (Acts 13:22) shamelessly repeats God’s apparent perspective that the son of Jesse was indeed “a man after my own heart.” How is this possible?

 

When faced with competing values to weigh and choose, should we not expect God to direct us without having to impugn his character?

 

In these examples the simple answer is that though the Scriptures might commend a person for a righteous act or action, we should not think that God condones everything a person might have done. I mean, as regrettable as many of their actions may have been, every person still had the capacity to be faithful – irrespective of their failures and sins. Abraham may have told a half-truth, but it was a whole lie. So, God commending a person in one area should not be understood as his general praise for all areas of that life. Problem solved? Apparently not!


In Joshua, Chapter Two we encounter a story that many believe suggests that when circumstances require righteous choices in the face of evil, or even death, lying, though not preferred, can be acceptable. Think of it as a kind of Fletcherian lesser-of-two-evils necessity. Rahab, the wall-dwelling prostitute’s goes to great effort to protect spies that Joshua had sent into Jericho.


But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. And she said, “True, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. And when the gate was about to be closed at dark, the men went out. I do not know where the men went. Pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them.” (2:4-5)


Add to this mix the favorable comments in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25, and it starts to look like lying is indeed an acceptable strategy. It is not uncommon for Christians to resurrect the fascinating, true story of Corrie ten Boom of Holland (The Hiding Place) as ‘proof’. Corrie, you might recall, lied to the invading Germans to save the lives of innocent Jews hidden in a secret room in her bedroom.

 

Is the obligation to protect lives more heavily weighted than

the obligation to tell the truth? I mean, are there periodic

exceptions to truth-telling – and we get to decide?

 

Some believers maintain that the reader really needs to focus on Rahab’s confession of faith (vv. 8-14) and the promise of salvation (15-21), two of the longest speeches in the book, not her deceit. Frankly, this sounds deflective to me, but OK, suppose we do! Suppose we focus on the truth she did confess. Wonderful! Still, a faithful exegete must contend with all the text, not simply those parts that appear redemptive. Shall we ignore the other parts of the narrative?


Others admit Rahab was lying – but with war about to breakout, she sides with Yahweh, acting more like an Israelite patriot than a member of the Jericho community. How can giving false information in a time of war be a bad thing? Besides, it is treasonous to give away military secrets, so who can blame her lying as an act of self-preservation?


What seems conveniently forgotten is that Israel and Jericho were in fact not yet at war (Joshua 2). The king rightfully enquires as to where the spies are so they can be apprehended – but he is not the instigator – Joshua is! Yes, spies had been sent to reconnoiter. Yes, war seems inevitable. Yes, her words invite personal risk. However, not until Joshua 6 do we see military escalation and confrontation – so to suggest this was a ‘time of war’ ignores the facts and is simply a contrived pretext for justifiable lying, seems to me. So why is lying to preserve your life a permissible, even admirable thing? Would not ‘dying for the cause’ be more commendable?


Still others offer that Rahab did not lie, instead speaking only true words that concealed the truth. The parables of Jesus are usually referenced to support the claim, saying that Jesus did so to reveal and conceal. It is argued that this is precisely the kind of action Jesus is encouraging his disciples to do when he tells them to be “as shrewd as snakes and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16).


Sorry, but Jesus hiding his identity from time to time is not lying in any sense of the word. Jesus’s commands to silence (Mark 1:24, 34, 43; 3:12; 5:43; 7:33-36; 8:22-26; 8:38; 9:9) to both ‘outsiders’ and ‘insiders’ contains no evidence of lying, deceitfulness, or dishonesty.


Further, Jesus’ parables were consistently intended to teach profound, divine truths. There is no teaching happening in Rahab’s interaction with the Kings servants and though recipients might be too spiritually blind to understand his words – deception was never, ever a modus operandi of Jesus. Though Jesus says, “As you announce the Kingdom of God in the world, be smart without doing harm”, it is creative manipulation to impose this ‘truth’ into a 13th century BCE narrative without something more inter-textually substantive.

 

When we conclude that we can justify our moral decisions, when God’s Word instructs otherwise – we lose our way to the cross.

 

What Constitutes a Lie?


Precisely what is a lie? It can best be defined as the voluntary intent to deceive by speaking; making a false or misleading statement or providing false or misleading information with the knowledge that it is false. So, a lie is (a) the speaking of untruth, (b) it is known by the person to be misleading or false, and (c) it is intended to deceive and even lead into error. Rahab checks all the boxes here!

  • I do not know where they came from” (v. 4). In verses 9-10 however Rahab says otherwise. “I know the Lord has given you the land . . . the fear of you has fallen on us . . . we have heard . . . dried up the Red Sea when you came out of Egypt . . . the two kings of the Amorites . . . to Sihon and Og. . .” Rahab knows they had come from across the Jordan … and even further!

  • I do not know which way they went” (v. 5), but in fact she most certainly did for she had “taken the two men and hidden them” (v. 4).

  • Go after them quickly. You may catch up with them” (v. 5). Not possible given that Rahab had “hidden them under the stalks of flax” (v. 6) Catching up with them was not going to happen.

Does God stutter when he says, “You shall not bear false witness” (Exodus 20:16)? Is Paul confused when he offers “Each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully.” (Ephesians 4:25). What about all the other passages, like Leviticus 19:10-11; Proverbs 6:16-19; 12:22; Colossians 3:9; I Timothy 1:8; Revelation 21:8?


Is truth-telling a part-time Christian requirement? Is lying permissible because, ‘after-all’ God’s kingdom is at stake? Would we mind if our butcher sold us a 3-pound roast at todays inflationary prices, but it was actually only 2.5 (Deuteronomy 25:15)? Would we be OK with a car purchased with 80,000 km, not knowing that the odometer had been turned back from 145,666 – or is material disclosure required?

 

A growing spiritual maturity goes hand-in-hand with the need to disclose truth in situations that appear to threaten personal difficulty.

 

Quibble as we might, here is what I know for sure –

  • God does not lie (nor fail or die for that matter)! Numbers 23:19; I Samuel 15:29; Titus 1:2 Hebrews 6:18. Not once has he instructed others to either!

  • The standard for truth is God himself, in that he is “the God of Truth” (Isaiah 65:16). Notice here that truth ties together personality and objectivity.

  • The basic OT word for truth is חמא (emet) ‘firmness, faithfulness’, from which we get the verb ךמא, which in English appears as ‘Amen’. By what reasoning is it OK for a believer to say ‘Amen’ in church yet not practice this ‘firmness’ in life’s situations?

  • In Greek thought ‘truth’ is impersonal, yet in Hebrew thought it is internalized in a person and shared in a relationship between persons (Genesis 42:16). Without fail, all believers are by nature engaged in relationships, where words do matter.

  • The decalogue with its timeless principles of right and wrong, like not bearing false witness, are the only laws and commandments in all of scripture “written with the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18). Surely that carries some significance. You think?

Lying profoundly complicates a person’s judgment and its capacity for manipulation and personal harm can be enormous. Further, the highest practicing value for all believers is not, as some suppose, kindness or love . . . but truth. Kindness and love do not make people free – “truth’ does (John 8:31) and none of these important qualities matter if it has to do with life in this world - but not the next.

 

Is Corrie ten Boom a justifiable exception to the truthful character

of God in her pursuit of a deeper truth - in love. Nope!

 

What About Concealment ?


Concealment (and secrecy) is a different matter, for while we have no right to deceive, it is permissible to conceal facts. I would argue that concealment is a moral evil only when an obligation exists to reveal the fact which is concealed. Said another way, No one has God’s permission to lie, but then does everyone have the right to know all the facts? The answer is a resounding no! And there is biblical evidence go back it up.

  • Jesus concealed himself to his Emmaus disciples in Luke 24.

  • Samuel concealed from Saul that he had ‘another’ purpose beyond coming to sacrifice to the Lord (I Samuel 16:2). Saul never asked – and so Samuel never needed to answer.

  • Jesus was not lying to his unbelieving (7:5), sarcastic half-brothers (John 7) when twice he said he was “not yet” (7:6, 8) going to the Passover Feast with them. Like the other non-believers around them, they were issuing Jesus a challenge to prove himself publicly. For Jesus, God’s exact timing and perfect planning were paramount . . . and so he went privately (concealment).

Just because we are asked a question does not mean we are required to answer the question. Still, not disclosing information (concealment) does not make lying a justifiable act. So ask yourself:

  • Does God approve of dubious methods foreign to the integrity of his own character to fulfill the purpose of his will? Is not the Christian’s duty to emulate the character of God, of which truth telling one aspect?

  • Is protecting innocent lives a greater good than truth-telling?

  • Is lying ever indispensable to the success of the Christian ‘mission?”

  • Is telling the truth critical for a society to flourish?

No doubt some reading will want to contrive a narrative that substitutes, and therefore diminishes, God’s moral value for some justified human behavior. It is inevitable! Still, how about we just take the approach of biblical honesty and allow the consequences to fall where they might? How about we focus on our normal lives – and tell the truth?

 

I suppose we could dismantle our country’s moral traditions

about truth-telling and replace it with progressive stupidity,

but I think we might already be there

 

I wish I could look to our Canadian parliament for truth – but it has been so utterly compromised and corrupted, concocting lies to mobilize public opinion, stigmatizing adversaries, using control technology, misappropriating Acts of Parliament for personal gain and leveraging legacy media peddlers of disinformation, that I am not expecting the institution will be redeemed anytime soon.


I have higher hopes however that Christians, at both the normal and highest levels of Christianity, will see Truth as a meaningful discursive practice in every area of their life. After all, if our Christian identity is in Jesus who is “the way, the truth and the life,” then our world view should reflect this, you would think. “OnlySaying…”


Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page