Moral Absolutes: Lying

[SolaScriptura]

I think you have to do an awful lot of gymnastics to make the midwives and Rahab not blessed as a result of their lying. But, then their lying was not like the vast majority of lying.

Exactly. The vast majority of lying - almost 100% of it - is to try to save face, get out of paying for the consequences of ones (sinful) actions, get ahead of others, put others down, etc.

So I can say, despite what I said above in post #30, without any sense of dodginess, "LYING IS WRONG." Becuase that general statement addresses virtually every reason why people lie in real life... including myself.

 

[Confessor]

Several distinctions have to be made to understand this concept. We have to first note that several things can be considering lying (and thereby are prohibited by the ninth commandment) that involve silence or an unwillingness to tell the truth. For instance, if I were at a friend's house getting high, and I came back and my mom asked what I was doing, and I told her only that I was at my friend's house without mentioning marijuana, then I would be breaking the ninth commandment, because I would be withholding information from someone who deserves to know all the information. (I would also be breaking the fifth commandment, obviously, but this doesn't deny the fact that I would be breaking the ninth.)

If we do not maintain that telling the entire truth (to the best of our abilities) to those who deserve to hear all of it is the only way to avoid lying, then we run into severe moral problems, like the one mentioned above. Therefore it is crucial that upholding the ninth commandment includes the positive telling of the truth, and not merely keeping silence. Silence is not a legitimate third option; it is tantamount to deception. Half-truths are just as immoral as lies (when people deserve to hear the truth).

The Nazis-at-the-door example always is relevant. And the key concept here is that there is no third alternative of silence (morally, per above, or pragmatically), for if you don't answer the Nazis, then they will kill you and know you have Jews in the house. But at the same time, the Nazis are completely undeserving of the information, and it takes no genius to figure out what will occur if you say that you do have Jews in the house. This shows that it is morally permissible (even morally obligatory) to lie to the Nazis and to deceive them.

(By the way, to say that we should tell the Nazis the Jews are in the house and "let God take care of the rest" is to beg the question that deceiving the Nazis in this situation is wrong. Of course, if all forms of lying and truth-withholding are proscribed, then we should absolutely tell them the truth and let God take care of the rest.)

Deceiving the Nazis is not an example of the ends justifying the means, or of breaking the ninth commandment to honor the sixth. What is crucial here is understanding what exactly lying entails. Just as we must make many distinctions to understand what exactly is considered murder, so also we must do this to understand what exactly is considered lying. It's not denying the absolute wrongness of lying to be scrupulous in pinpointing exactly what lying is. Being concise and detailed in moral reasoning does not entail that we deny the absolute wrongness of lying. If anything, it strengthens our belief in moral absolutism, for it shows that we are basing our principles on absolute notions -- e.g. Does this person deserve to know any information?

And frankly, it makes no sense to say that we have to tell the whole truth to everyone, regardless of whether or not they deserve it. As a very brief reductio ad absurdum of the notion that we can never deceive anyone or withhold the truth from anyone (besides the Nazi example), take a sports game: the athlete is not obliged to tell his opponent what play he is about to execute. Or a magician: he is not obliged to reveal his tricks to others. Saying that silence is a third option here does not change the situation morally, for I already demonstrated above that silence and deception both involve the withholding of information from a person and are therefore morally equivalent.

Therefore, what is significant is whether or not the potential recipient of the information is deserving of hearing the information. And that is the main distinction. If they are not, silence and deception are allowed and sometimes obligatory. If they are, then telling the full truth is obligatory.

And if anyone reading this message thinks I'm being too philosophical or impious, or that I'm trying to peer into the secret things of God or something, well, go ahead.

 

[SRoper]

How do we know the Hebrew midwives were lying?

 

[Skyler]

How do we know the Hebrew midwives were lying?

Even if they weren't lying(which I find unlikely) we still have Rahab's situation. This question, unfortunately, is an argument from silence--"The Bible doesn't say they were lying..."

With that said, however, I'm concerned that we may be isolating a few select anecdotes to support a case which is almost universally condemned in the rest of Scripture. Bearing false witness, lying, etc., is condemned over and over without making exceptions for the saving of innocent life. Rather than discarding this fact in favor of two historical incidents, we should try to harmonize them both.

Recall that wrongful acts on the part of God's elect are sometimes overlooked in Scripture. Recall also that in the Proverbs, lying lips are repeatedly condemned and categorized as an "abomination". I may simply be unfamiliar with the passages, but I'm not aware of any *non-anecdotal* instances where lying is permitted under certain circumstances.

 

[louis_jp]

I think of it as the lesser of evils. If the Nazis are at your door, you can, 1. tell them the truth, which will assist them in murdering people, 2. remain silent, which (as has been pointed out) will assist them in murdering people, or 3. lie, and thereby save lives.

In other words, you're sinning either way you go. Which is a situation that you can only be in in a fallen world. In Heaven, telling the truth will always result in goodness and light. On earth, the choices are different. So, ethically, I think it's entirely appropriate to lie in certain situations, and as someone else has said, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Now, the question is, could it be that God commends liers simply because they chose the least evil and did the best they could in that situation?

 

[louis_jp]

... 2. remain silent, which (as has been pointed out) will assist them in murdering people ...

This is just not true. You have no idea what the future holds. God has a standard: Thou shalt not lie. You obey that standard. READ: This does not mean that you tell them anything, but you do not *know* that your silence is going to result in the murdering of innocents. You obey God's revealed will and let God take care of the consequences. There is no such thing as a lesser of two evils, for they are both evil. I'll stick with Jeremiah Burroughs (albeit ever so inconsistently) when he says, "It is better to choose affliction than sin."

I disagree with this. You know what will happen if you remain silent, because God gave you a brain and common sense to understand these things.

 

[louis_jp]

This is just not true. You have no idea what the future holds. God has a standard: Thou shalt not lie. You obey that standard. READ: This does not mean that you tell them anything, but you do not *know* that your silence is going to result in the murdering of innocents. You obey God's revealed will and let God take care of the consequences. There is no such thing as a lesser of two evils, for they are both evil. I'll stick with Jeremiah Burroughs (albeit ever so inconsistently) when he says, "It is better to choose affliction than sin."

I disagree with this. You know what will happen if you remain silent, because God gave you a brain and common sense to understand these things.

He gave me a Law that is perpetual, perfect, and binding, and has told me to obey it. He's never made an exception. My brain (and any other's except for the Lord Jesus Christ's) is tainted with the sin and the effects of the fall.

Okay, but brother, how do you square that with Rahab, et. al.? Did she remain silent or lie? And did or did not God commend her? I understand you can split hairs about which part of her actions were commended and which weren't, but the bottom line is that she lied and was commended.

Also, if the Nazis were after you, and I told you that I could hide you in my house, but if the Nazis asked I would only remain silent, I wouldn't lie for you, seriously, would you accept my offer or go somewhere else?

 

[Theoretical]

I think of it as the lesser of evils. If the Nazis are at your door, you can, 1. tell them the truth, which will assist them in murdering people, 2. remain silent, which (as has been pointed out) will assist them in murdering people, or 3. lie, and thereby save lives.

In other words, you're sinning either way you go. Which is a situation that you can only be in in a fallen world. In Heaven, telling the truth will always result in goodness and light. On earth, the choices are different. So, ethically, I think it's entirely appropriate to lie in certain situations, and as someone else has said, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Now, the question is, could it be that God commends liers simply because they chose the least evil and did the best they could in that situation?

You took the words out of my mouth. I disagree that silence doesn't inherently mean anything. It means yes, pretty much anywhere where you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence. Even in America, though the courts aren't supposed to evaluate it, don't we intrinsically believe someone is guilty if they don't affirmative defend their innocence?

The problem is that body language says it all when you are silent, it will say yes or no whether you say yes or no.

If you want a profound on-screen example of how a devout Christian dealt with this in modern life, watch Sophie Scholl: The Last Days and her refusal to implicate others involved in the anti-Nazi peaceful dissent movement. As much of the movie uses actual interrogation transcripts for the script, this provides a good case study. Is it necessarily a perfect comparison to the "Jews in the basement", since they were moral and political dissenters and not merely the "wrong" ethnicity.

Where both actions are sin (even if this situation isn't a perfect application), due to the circumstances of a fallen world, what should we do?

-----Added 3/26/2009 at 03:34:05 EST-----

I think of it as the lesser of evils. If the Nazis are at your door, you can, 1. tell them the truth, which will assist them in murdering people, 2. remain silent, which (as has been pointed out) will assist them in murdering people, or 3. lie, and thereby save lives.

In other words, you're sinning either way you go. Which is a situation that you can only be in in a fallen world. In Heaven, telling the truth will always result in goodness and light. On earth, the choices are different. So, ethically, I think it's entirely appropriate to lie in certain situations, and as someone else has said, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Now, the question is, could it be that God commends liers simply because they chose the least evil and did the best they could in that situation?

You took the words out of my mouth. I disagree that silence doesn't inherently mean anything. It means yes, pretty much anywhere where you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence. Even in America, though the courts aren't supposed to evaluate it, don't we intrinsically believe someone is guilty if they don't affirmative defend their innocence?

The problem is that body language says it all when you are silent, it will say yes or no whether you say yes or no.

If you want a profound on-screen example of how a devout Christian dealt with this in modern life, watch Sophie Scholl: The Last Days and her refusal to implicate others involved in the anti-Nazi peaceful dissent movement. As much of the movie uses actual interrogation transcripts for the script, this provides a good case study. Is it necessarily a perfect comparison to the "Jews in the basement", since they were moral and political dissenters and not merely the "wrong" ethnicity.

Where both actions are sin (even if this situation isn't a perfect application), due to the circumstances of a fallen world, what should we do?

I remain unsure whether she was right to do what she did or not, though I believe the Gestapo did not deserve the truth. I merely bring it up as an example for which we have actual testimony.

 

[steven-nemes]

The options are not only "lie or tell the truth" (see Dan Barker - One of America's Leading Atheists: To Lie, or Not To Lie: That is the Question).

And besides that, the idea that lying would prevent an "innocent" person from dying is false, because there are no innocent people. Everyone is deserving of death, including the Jews during the Holocaust.

 

[louis_jp]

The options are not only "lie or tell the truth" (see Dan Barker - One of America's Leading Atheists: To Lie, or Not To Lie: That is the Question).

And besides that, the idea that lying would prevent an "innocent" person from dying is false, because there are no innocent people. Everyone is deserving of death, including the Jews during the Holocaust.

In reference to the article, I think if you deliberately mislead someone you are lying. I don't buy the Bill Clinton-esque semantic defense. The other options he mentioned wouldn't work in the Nazi example. There really are cases where lying is the lesser evil out of all your choices.

 

[steven-nemes]

In reference to the article, I think if you deliberately mislead someone you are lying. I don't buy the Bill Clinton-esque semantic defense. The other options he mentioned wouldn't work in the Nazi example. There really are cases where lying is the lesser evil out of all your choices.

I think "I did see some but I don't know where they went" would work.

 

[jwithnell]

OK, I'm sure some Hebrew scholar could jump all over this; but in the English, the ninth commandment is given in a legal or judicial setting ... "false witness." Could it be that lying in a legal situation automatically invokes breaking of the other commandments; i.e. in a murder trial, being a false witness would lead to the defendant's death and so forth? And while we can extrapolate the general principle of "not lying" from the ninth commandment and other passages of scripture, could its limited nature in the 10 commandments show that it is subordinate to the other commandments ... preserving life, for example, would take precedence over the midwives dealing truthfully in a situation that would have killed newborns?

 

[snap_dragon]

It is better to choose affliction than sin.

But in the case of who's affliction - mine for lying to Nazis or the potential death of those in hiding from me telling the Nazis the truth or strangely remaining silent? Let's use some common sense in a situation where Nazis are kicking doors in...I think that my remaining quiet would give them pause for checking the joint out. They may not, but it is a reasonable assumption to make and influence how I respond...in which I would resoundly say "NO. Nobody Is Here." But this has already been said in a better way by previous posters. I just wanted to have my 2 cents tossed in.


Good post question by the way...lots of interesting responses!

 

[Confessor]

Did anyone see my distinction above? I dispute that withholding information from someone, or deceiving him, is necessarily lying. Therefore it's not even a matter of lesser evils; it's just making the moral decision, viz. to lie to the Nazis.

-----Added 3/26/2009 at 05:27:41 EST-----

And besides that, the idea that lying would prevent an "innocent" person from dying is false, because there are no innocent people. Everyone is deserving of death, including the Jews during the Holocaust.

It's not as if we're trying to protect them from God's judgment or anything. We are commanded to protect life from murder.

 

[moral necessity]

Does God lie? Then, lying is contrary to the proper standard of righteousness. "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Mt. 5:48

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfer, which is the second death." - Rev. 21:8.

We must carefully understand what James is saying. First of all, it's not a teaching passage on what is morally right or wrong to do. It is a descriptive passage of what Abraham and Rahab did. James' point is that FAITH will become VISIBLE, SEEABLE FAITH in certain behaviors. He is not talking about any ordinary good work, but a specific work that displays that faith of Rahab and Abraham. Abraham trusted God that "through Isaac shall your offspring be named", and so the sacrificing of Isaac showed his faith that God was able to still keep his promise by raising him from the dead (Heb. 11:17-19). And Rahab's faith and trust in God was displayed by her receiving the spies and sending them out another way.

Now, both works were contaminated with sin at some level, as all of our works are. All of our deeds have a mixture of sin with them, and yet, the works of believers have a mixture of grace or holiness in them also. And so, when a work of ours is commended, it is not commended for the sin that remains attached to the work, but for the part of that work that is prompted by the Spirit of God within us. So, Rahab is not commended for lying, in my opinion. The lying aspect of it has nothing at all to do with displaying her faith in God. She is commended for her faith, and James is pointing out the specific work that displayed that faith. It just so happens that her work that displayed her trust in God also displayed a disobedience to his standard of perfection. I see no problem in reconciling the matter in this way.

 

[Theoretical]

Does God lie? Then, lying is contrary to the proper standard of righteousness. "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Mt. 5:48

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfer, which is the second death." - Rev. 21:8.

We must carefully understand what James is saying. First of all, it's not a teaching passage on what is morally right or wrong to do. It is a descriptive passage of what Abraham and Rahab did. James' point is that FAITH will become VISIBLE, SEEABLE FAITH in certain behaviors. He is not talking about any ordinary good work, but a specific work that displays that faith of Rahab and Abraham. Abraham trusted God that "through Isaac shall your offspring be named", and so the sacrificing of Isaac showed his faith that God was able to still keep his promise by raising him from the dead (Heb. 11:17-19). And Rahab's faith and trust in God was displayed by her receiving the spies and sending them out another way.

Now, both works were contaminated with sin at some level, as all of our works are. All of our deeds have a mixture of sin with them, and yet, the works of believers have a mixture of grace or holiness in them also. And so, when a work of ours is commended, it is not commended for the sin that remains attached to the work, but for the part of that work that is prompted by the Spirit of God within us. So, Rahab is not commended for lying, in my opinion. The lying aspect of it has nothing at all to do with displaying her faith in God. She is commended for her faith, and James is pointing out the specific work that displayed that faith. It just so happens that her work that displayed her trust in God also displayed a disobedience to his standard of perfection. I see no problem in reconciling the matter in this way.

It just so happens that her work that displayed her trust in God also displayed a disobedience to his standard of perfection. I see no problem in reconciling the matter in this way.

I can see this as well.

To me, the sinful action taken in faith would be no different than sharing the Gospel and someone being brought to repentence while eating out on the Sabbath. The former is praised and the latter should not have been done, but is covered by the blood of Christ for Christians.

My main issues are (1) that I dispute whether silence actually is a 3rd non-truth/non-lying option without being a passive, yet explicit affirmative and (2) whether people who don't deserve the truth (I think we all agree that Gestapo did not deserve the truth) can also be told lies.

The other elephant in the room is how secret activities on the government's part can ever be justified. Pentagon light bulbs do not cost $100 because of monumental governmental inefficiency, they cost whatever price and the bulk of it actually goes to secret projects that don't make budget lines. Is this morally any different?

What about the entirely fake army group General Patton was assigned to convince the Nazis that Overlord would strike at Cais-de-Palais when the real targe was Normandy? Massive deception including fake tanks, double-double agents, and fake communiques were all created?

If we believe that nations should follow the Decalogue, how is this morally different from telling a Gestapo patrol that you haven't seen any Jews come by your neighborhood? Or from creating fake papers for Jews to escape the country so they can be smuggled across?

In fact, when the law gives you an affirmative duty to report any people of X ideas, skin color, or national origin, your not doing so when you know about them is implicitly lying to the government is it not? Once you have an affirmative duty by a state where law is absolute and unquestioned, your not saying anything is making a statement that you do not know of any of those people.

I've read some Nazi Legal Theory (Carl Schmitt specifically), and this idea of law specifically applies to their views. It's wrong, but in a police state, not saying anything when you have a duty to do so is as legally wrong as lying about it directly, and is prosecuted as such. It is directly interpreted as lying and punished as lying.

Not trying to be a pill here, but I'm seriously wondering how to deal with some of these issues.

 

[Davidius]

Just a question...

We often admit that the "spirit of the law" extends the applicability of a given command to more than what is stated immediately in the text. One example would be Jesus saying that hatred is a violation of the command not to murder. The Westminster Confession explicates the ten commandments by listing lots of offenses which could be categorized under each commandment. Is it possible that the "spirit of the law" works in the opposite direction, too? If some actions aren't explicitly covered by the commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," yet are still considered sinful in the same sense that "lying" is sinful, perhaps it is also wrong to interpret the commandments in the fashion of Kant's moral imperative, where the plainest grammatical and lexical interpretation is applicable in every case. For lying such an interpretation would be, "any time you say something that is contrary to the factual reality of things, you are sinning."

 

[Claudiu]

It is better to choose affliction than sin.

But in the case of who's affliction - mine for lying to Nazis or the potential death of those in hiding from me telling the Nazis the truth or strangely remaining silent? Let's use some common sense in a situation where Nazis are kicking doors in...I think that my remaining quiet would give them pause for checking the joint out. They may not, but it is a reasonable assumption to make and influence how I respond...in which I would resoundly say "NO. Nobody Is Here." But this has already been said in a better way by previous posters. I just wanted to have my 2 cents tossed in.


Good post question by the way...lots of interesting responses!

Its a question that's been bugging me for a while. I am still torn on the issue. But I am glad to see all the responses being given, and the arguments on both sides have strong points.

-----Added 3/26/2009 at 08:14:31 EST-----

This has come up in a couple of my discussions with people lately. Not only philosophy people, but Christians as well.
My uncle (a Christian) believes in justified lying, and therefore lying is not an absolute. One can lie in order to save a life. This is brought up in philosophy, especially Immanuel Kant. However, I believe that lying is wrong no matter what, even in bad circumstances where lying would be an option to save someone.
One of the texts that come to mind is in Exodus 1 where the midwives lied, and then it says that God dealt well with the midwives. Opponents of my view point, that lying is wrong no matter what, would say that it is ok, and that this is a circumstance when it was allowed. I don't think God rewarded the midwives lying, but rather the fear they showed towards God was rewarded.


16And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

17But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

18And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?

19And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.

20Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.

21And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.


The scenerio that is sometimes brought up goes something like this: "Imagine you are in WWII Nazi Germany and you are hiding Jews in your house. Now there come some Nazi's at your door and ask you if there are any Jews inside your house. There are 2 options now: tell the truth, causing the Jews to be caught...or...lie, causing the Jews to be safe." In this scenerio the question is, "would you lie in order to save a life?"

Another one is..."You are in a country where Christianity is illegal. You are sneaking Bible's into the country, but one day you are caught by the police. They ask you what church, or people you are going to deliver them to." Again the options are to tell the truth and possible have someone die, or lie and save a life.

One more point, looking at church history and all the martyrs that have stood up for their faith, it shows that people were willing to tell the truth, as opposed to just lying once, a "justified lie," in order to save their life or that of others.

I am interested in seeing what you guys have to say. Any ideas.

On Immanuel Kant:

Moral philosophy


Immanuel Kant
Kant developed his moral philosophy in three works: Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785),[28] Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and Metaphysics of Morals (1797) .
In the Groundwork, Kant's method involves trying to convert our everyday, obvious, rational[29] knowledge of morality into philosophical knowledge. The latter two works followed a method of using "practical reason", which is based only upon things about which reason can tell us, and not deriving any principles from experience, to reach conclusions which are able to be applied to the world of experience (in the second part of The Metaphysic of Morals).
Kant is known for his theory that there is a single moral obligation, which he called the "Categorical Imperative", and is derived from the concept of duty. Kant defines the demands of the moral law as "categorical imperatives." Categorical imperatives are principles that are intrinsically valid; they are good in and of themselves; they must be obeyed in all situations and circumstances if our behavior is to observe the moral law. It is from the Categorical Imperative that all other moral obligations are generated, and by which all moral obligations can be tested. Kant also stated that the moral means and ends can be applied to the categorical imperative, that rational beings can pursue certain "ends" using the appropriate "means." Ends that are based on physical needs or wants will always give for merely hypothetical imperatives. The categorical imperative, however, may be based only on something that is an "end in itself". That is, an end that is a means only to itself and not to some other need, desire, or purpose.[30] He believed that the moral law is a principle of reason itself, and is not based on contingent facts about the world, such as what would make us happy, but to act upon the moral law which has no other motive than "worthiness of being happy"[31]. Accordingly, he believed that moral obligation applies to all and only rational agents.[32]
A categorical imperative is an unconditional obligation; that is, it has the force of an obligation regardless of our will or desires (Contrast this with hypothetical imperative)[33] In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785) Kant enumerated three formulations of the categorical imperative which he believed to be roughly equivalent[34]:
Kant believed that if an action is not done with the motive of duty, then it is without moral value. He thought that every action should have pure intention behind it; otherwise it was meaningless. He did not necessarily believe that the final result was the most important aspect of an action, but that how the person felt while carrying out the action was the time at which value was set to the result.
In Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant also posited the "counter-utilitarian idea that there is a difference between preferences and values and that considerations of individual rights temper calculations of aggregate utility", a concept that is an axiom in economics:[35]
Everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no equivalent, has a dignity. But that which constitutes the condition under which alone something can be an end in itself does not have mere relative worth, i.e., price, but an intrinsic worth, i.e., a dignity. (p. 53, italics in original).
A phrase quoted by Kant, which is used to summarize the counter-utilitarian nature of his moral philosophy, is Fiat justitia, pereat mundus, ("Let justice be done, though the world perish"), which he translates loosely as "Let justice reign even if all the rascals in the world should perish from it". This appears in his 1795 Perpetual Peace (Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf.), Appendix 1.[36][37][38]

 

[satz]

People are coming at this question with the assumption that God would never, under any circumstances approve of lying. Why?

There are absolutely no exceptions to God's law when considered in its entirety, but God's law can only be understood in its entirety from reading the whole bible, not just the decalogue.

As I said, there are exceptions for works of mercy/necessity on the sabbath, but you would never guess that just from reading the 10 commandments. You also need to read the whole bible to identify that counts as "murder" for that commandment.

Why is it so impossible to believe there would likewise be exceptions for lying?

-----Added 3/26/2009 at 09:16:42 EST-----

... I'm not aware of any *non-anecdotal* instances where lying is permitted under certain circumstances.

That is true, but in dealing with the sabbath day Jesus endorsed the method of using narrative to interpret explicit commands. He told the pharisees they should have figured out from the example of David eating the shewbread that people could pick corn to eat on the sabbath.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

People are coming at this question with the assumption that God would never, under any circumstances approve of lying. Why?

There are absolutely no exceptions to God's law when considered in its entirety, but God's law can only be understood in its entirety from reading the whole bible, not just the decalogue.

As I said, there are exceptions for works of mercy/necessity on the sabbath, but you would never guess that just from reading the 10 commandments. You also need to read the whole bible to identify that counts as "murder" for that commandment.

Why is it so impossible to believe there would likewise be exceptions for lying?

-----Added 3/26/2009 at 09:16:42 EST-----

It is dangerous thinking to believe that works of necessity and mercy are "exceptions" to the 4th Commandment. I agree that the entire Bible ought to be used to help us to understand the 10 Commandments, but the works of necessity and mercy shown in the rest of the Scriptures to be acceptable on the Sabbath Day are not exceptions, but actually keeping the Sabbath Day.

As for the ninth Commandment and the Hebrew midwives, there is no indication in the text that the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh, it is rather an assumption. If the Hebrew midwives obeyed God rather than men, and purposefully arrived late to the births so that the Hebrew women had already given birth, they are exonerated from the charge of lying--and they are commended for disobeying the wicked command of Pharaoh. As for the liveliness of the Hebrew women, I am quite content to take the midwives' word on that, seeing that they were there and I was not. Perhaps the Hebrew women had the added incentive to be lively knowing the command of the king against their sons.

As for the Nazi's at the door, remember that extreme circumstances make poor policy. I remember reading "The Hiding Place" a number of years ago. It seems, as I recall (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the TenBoom family had devised very interesting ways not to lie, and yet protect their "guests" in the secret place behind the wall. One of the children would lead the Nazi's on a search of the house repeating, "Are the Jews here?" looking under the bed, in the closet, etc. all the while leading them away from the "hiding place", and avoiding directly stating an untruth. I do believe that such is an acceptable deception, but is different from the Larger Catechism, which rightly condemns speaking untruth. I do not believe we may do that.

But, in the final analysis, death is not the worst thing that can happen to us, or to others, and willfully sinning against the Almighty God is is a fearful thing. As one said above, the body language will give you away if you lie anyway. You may refuse to answer the question, you may do all sorts of things that put yourself at risk--but to tell a lie, that is, to speak an untruth, is never commended in Scripture.

 

[Confessor]

So what does everyone think about the distinction between withholding information from or deceiving people who deserve to hear the information and those who don't?

I would say that just as necessity and mercy are criteria for understanding the Sabbath -- and not exceptions to it -- so a person's deserving of information is a criterion for understanding the ninth commandment.

 

[Theoretical]

People are coming at this question with the assumption that God would never, under any circumstances approve of lying. Why?

There are absolutely no exceptions to God's law when considered in its entirety, but God's law can only be understood in its entirety from reading the whole bible, not just the decalogue.

As I said, there are exceptions for works of mercy/necessity on the sabbath, but you would never guess that just from reading the 10 commandments. You also need to read the whole bible to identify that counts as "murder" for that commandment.

Why is it so impossible to believe there would likewise be exceptions for lying?

-----Added 3/26/2009 at 09:16:42 EST-----

It is dangerous thinking to believe that works of necessity and mercy are "exceptions" to the 4th Commandment. I agree that the entire Bible ought to be used to help us to understand the 10 Commandments, but the works of necessity and mercy shown in the rest of the Scriptures to be acceptable on the Sabbath Day are not exceptions, but actually keeping the Sabbath Day.

As for the ninth Commandment and the Hebrew midwives, there is no indication in the text that the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh, it is rather an assumption. If the Hebrew midwives obeyed God rather than men, and purposefully arrived late to the births so that the Hebrew women had already given birth, they are exonerated from the charge of lying--and they are commended for disobeying the wicked command of Pharaoh. As for the liveliness of the Hebrew women, I am quite content to take the midwives' word on that, seeing that they were there and I was not. Perhaps the Hebrew women had the added incentive to be lively knowing the command of the king against their sons.

As for the Nazi's at the door, remember that extreme circumstances make poor policy. I remember reading "The Hiding Place" a number of years ago. It seems, as I recall (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the TenBoom family had devised very interesting ways not to lie, and yet protect their "guests" in the secret place behind the wall. One of the children would lead the Nazi's on a search of the house repeating, "Are the Jews here?" looking under the bed, in the closet, etc. all the while leading them away from the "hiding place", and avoiding directly stating an untruth. I do believe that such is an acceptable deception, but is different from the Larger Catechism, which rightly condemns speaking untruth. I do not believe we may do that.

But, in the final analysis, death is not the worst thing that can happen to us, or to others, and willfully sinning against the Almighty God is is a fearful thing. As one said above, the body language will give you away if you lie anyway. You may refuse to answer the question, you may do all sorts of things that put yourself at risk--but to tell a lie, that is, to speak an untruth, is never commended in Scripture.

So if I understand your position correctly, indirect deception (like what the Ten Booms did or even the Allies' fake invasion force) is acceptable but direct deception (lying) is not? Is it that misleading someone by showing a half-truth (no Jews in this part of the house) or encouraging them to believe something inaccurate is different than directly lying?

What about an espionage agent having a cover and false papers? Or does the state have authority individuals do not?

Also, is there any significance to the commandment being to not give false witness against your neighbor? (emphasis added)

And yes, Rev. Ruddell, I do agree with you that hard cases make bad policy.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Yes, Scott, I believe, as I have stated in this thread before, that a feint move undertaken by an army is an acceptable deception (we have Scripture for that, as in Joshua at Ai). I also believe certain forms of espionage are acceptable if undertaken by the state for the purpose of national security. However, I also caution that even in these cases it is all too easy for us to deceive ourselves into thinking our "lying" is justified.

Much of what passes for acceptable espionage is done "because they're doing it" (speaking of the enemy). This makes for poor policy, and is a poor reason for imitating the opponent.

What would a faithful government do in such circumstances? If all the governors and intelligence officers were committed to Biblical morality rather than the status quo, what creative solutions to these moral difficulties would they envision? I believe we settle for the status quo all too easily rather than press ourselves into what the perfections of holiness would require, and to strive for that.

I must admit that I am discouraged at the readiness of many in Christian circles today to call lying acceptable, and then to go to an extreme case to prove the point, especially when we live in a society that patently given to lying, and that arrogantly so. I believe we have been negatively affected by our culture, rather than what we're called to do, which is to claim ground for Christ.

 

[KMK]

As usual Rev Ruddell, you really challenge my thinking. Thank you!


---------------

But, as a humorous aside, was Pinocchio guilty of sin in Shrek the Third?

Prince Charming: You. You can't lie. So tell me, puppet, where is Shrek?
Pinocchio: Uh, hmm, well, uh, I don't know where he's not.
Prince Charming: You're telling me you don't know where Shrek is?
Pinocchio: It wouldn’t be inaccurate to assume that I couldn’t exactly not say that it is or isn’t almost partially incorrect.
Prince Charming:- So you do know where he is?
Pinocchio: Oh, on the contrary. I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably...
Prince Charming: Stop it!
Pinocchio: ...do or do not know where he shouldn’t probably be, if that indeed wasn’t where he isn’t. Even if he wasn’t at where I knew he was, that’d mean I’d really have to know where he wasn't.

 

[satz]

It is dangerous thinking to believe that works of necessity and mercy are "exceptions" to the 4th Commandment. I agree that the entire Bible ought to be used to help us to understand the 10 Commandments, but the works of necessity and mercy shown in the rest of the Scriptures to be acceptable on the Sabbath Day are not exceptions, but actually keeping the Sabbath Day.

Perhaps my use of the word "exception" was inappropriate.. however, I do not think that really affects the argument. Whether works of necessity and mercy are "exceptions" to the sabbath command or simply part of keeping the true spirit of the command seem to be matters of phrasing.

I could also say (and I don't think I would be wrong) that the true spirit of the ninth commandment allows lying to save life. The commandment is phrased:"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" (Ex 20:16)

How is lying to save an innocent life bearing false witness against my neighbour?

As for the ninth Commandment and the Hebrew midwives, there is no indication in the text that the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh, it is rather an assumption. If the Hebrew midwives obeyed God rather than men, and purposefully arrived late to the births so that the Hebrew women had already given birth, they are exonerated from the charge of lying--and they are commended for disobeying the wicked command of Pharaoh. As for the liveliness of the Hebrew women, I am quite content to take the midwives' word on that, seeing that they were there and I was not. Perhaps the Hebrew women had the added incentive to be lively knowing the command of the king against their sons.

Ex 20:17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

The passage explicitly says the midwives saved the children. So it cannot be that the hebrew women were naturally too fast for them. Even if the midwives were deliberately late, why did they bring up the issue of the hebrew women being lively? Anyway we look at it there is a deception.

Also, by saying the midwives obeyed God rather than men, you are essentially saying they broke the strict reading of the fifth commandment. So why is it so impossible to envisage that God would allow people in extreme circumstances to "break" the ninth commandment?

As for the Nazi's at the door, remember that extreme circumstances make poor policy. I remember reading "The Hiding Place" a number of years ago. It seems, as I recall (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the TenBoom family had devised very interesting ways not to lie, and yet protect their "guests" in the secret place behind the wall. One of the children would lead the Nazi's on a search of the house repeating, "Are the Jews here?" looking under the bed, in the closet, etc. all the while leading them away from the "hiding place", and avoiding directly stating an untruth. I do believe that such is an acceptable deception, but is different from the Larger Catechism, which rightly condemns speaking untruth. I do not believe we may do that.

I don't think this is a distinction we can make from the bible. You have said that you consider Joshua's deception at Ai and use of spies acceptable. If there was absolutely no circumstance under which lying was acceptable, the "indirect" deception of Joshua would be caught by the ninth commandment under the same expansive principle set out in the sermon on the mount whereby anger without a cause is classifed as a form of murder.

I must admit that I am discouraged at the readiness of many in Christian circles today to call lying acceptable, and then to go to an extreme case to prove the point, especially when we live in a society that patently given to lying, and that arrogantly so. I believe we have been negatively affected by our culture, rather than what we're called to do, which is to claim ground for Christ.

As I've said, the reason extreme cases are cited is not because I want to use hard cases to define the general law. It is because the bible uses the hard cases.

-----Added 3/27/2009 at 01:33:43 EST-----

Exactly. The vast majority of lying - almost 100% of it - is to try to save face, get out of paying for the consequences of ones (sinful) actions, get ahead of others, put others down, etc.

So I can say, despite what I said above in post #30, without any sense of dodginess, "LYING IS WRONG." Becuase that general statement addresses virtually every reason why people lie in real life... including myself.

Just to avoid giving the wrong impression (unless I already have) I wanted to say again I agree completely with what Ben has said here.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

It is dangerous thinking to believe that works of necessity and mercy are "exceptions" to the 4th Commandment. I agree that the entire Bible ought to be used to help us to understand the 10 Commandments, but the works of necessity and mercy shown in the rest of the Scriptures to be acceptable on the Sabbath Day are not exceptions, but actually keeping the Sabbath Day.

Perhaps my use of the word "exception" was inappropriate.. however, I do not think that really affects the argument. Whether works of necessity and mercy are "exceptions" to the sabbath command or simply part of keeping the true spirit of the command seem to be matters of phrasing.

I could also say (and I don't think I would be wrong) that the true spirit of the ninth commandment allows lying to save life. The commandment is phrased:"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" (Ex 20:16)

How is lying to save an innocent life bearing false witness against my neighbour?

As for the ninth Commandment and the Hebrew midwives, there is no indication in the text that the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh, it is rather an assumption. If the Hebrew midwives obeyed God rather than men, and purposefully arrived late to the births so that the Hebrew women had already given birth, they are exonerated from the charge of lying--and they are commended for disobeying the wicked command of Pharaoh. As for the liveliness of the Hebrew women, I am quite content to take the midwives' word on that, seeing that they were there and I was not. Perhaps the Hebrew women had the added incentive to be lively knowing the command of the king against their sons.

Ex 20:17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

The passage explicitly says the midwives saved the children. So it cannot be that the hebrew women were naturally too fast for them. Even if the midwives were deliberately late, why did they bring up the issue of the hebrew women being lively? Anyway we look at it there is a deception.

Also, by saying the midwives obeyed God rather than men, you are essentially saying they broke the strict reading of the fifth commandment. So why is it so impossible to envisage that God would allow people in extreme circumstances to "break" the ninth commandment?



I don't think this is a distinction we can make from the bible. You have said that you consider Joshua's deception at Ai and use of spies acceptable. If there was absolutely no circumstance under which lying was acceptable, the "indirect" deception of Joshua would be caught by the ninth commandment under the same expansive principle set out in the sermon on the mount whereby anger without a cause is classifed as a form of murder.

I must admit that I am discouraged at the readiness of many in Christian circles today to call lying acceptable, and then to go to an extreme case to prove the point, especially when we live in a society that patently given to lying, and that arrogantly so. I believe we have been negatively affected by our culture, rather than what we're called to do, which is to claim ground for Christ.

As I've said, the reason extreme cases are cited is not because I want to use hard cases to define the general law. It is because the bible uses the hard cases.

-----Added 3/27/2009 at 01:33:43 EST-----

Exactly. The vast majority of lying - almost 100% of it - is to try to save face, get out of paying for the consequences of ones (sinful) actions, get ahead of others, put others down, etc.

So I can say, despite what I said above in post #30, without any sense of dodginess, "LYING IS WRONG." Becuase that general statement addresses virtually every reason why people lie in real life... including myself.

Just to avoid giving the wrong impression (unless I already have) I wanted to say again I agree completely with what Ben has said here.

Dear Mark,

Thank you again for the exchange. I have made a distinction, as I believe the Scripture does against "speaking an untruth" as the Larger Catechism defines it, and a feint maneuver, which is quite different from this.

Further, when you offer your interpretation of the action of the Hebrew midwives, remember that to "save the men children alive" requires nothing more than a passive allowing them to live, as I have said before. Theirs is not a lie. And, how do you know that they lied? Why would you assume that they're lying rather than telling the truth. If they feared God, they would be more likely to be "truth tellers" rather than "liars". As for the 5th Commandment, we must obey God rather than men, and not obey unlawful commands even of superiors, for no one has the authority to command us to sin. As protecting Jews from the Nazi's at the door, no one has the authority to command us to give them up to die, but also no one has the authority to excuse us from telling a lie.

As for your assertion that it is alright to lie in order to save life, I would simply say that the Apostle forbids such a procedure. (Romans 3.8) We are forbidden from doing evil that good may come. You will undoubtedly say, how do you know it is evil? Because God forbids it. Show us one example from Scripture where lying is commended. We have seen the Hebrew midwives, and Rahab, and it has been shown on both accounts that their commendation has nothing to do with lying. If this is a Scriptural and Godly principle, why then is the Scripture silent on such behavior?

I do believe that we are not required to tell the whole truth in every instance, that there is a certain amount of deception that may be acceptable in State-craft and warfare. But I believe that each case must be undertaken carefully. Again, what would a Godly government do? How would they order their activities if they truly cared about the 9th commandment?

Finally, I believe your comparison of the Sermon on the Mount to Joshua's actions at Ai to be a non-sequiter. I don't believe Joshua's actions were exceptions to the ninth Commandment, but lawful strategies for making war.

-----Added 3/27/2009 at 02:47:26 EST-----

As usual Rev Ruddell, you really challenge my thinking. Thank you!


---------------

But, as a humorous aside, was Pinocchio guilty of sin in Shrek the Third?

Prince Charming: You. You can't lie. So tell me, puppet, where is Shrek?
Pinocchio: Uh, hmm, well, uh, I don't know where he's not.
Prince Charming: You're telling me you don't know where Shrek is?
Pinocchio: It wouldn’t be inaccurate to assume that I couldn’t exactly not say that it is or isn’t almost partially incorrect.
Prince Charming:- So you do know where he is?
Pinocchio: Oh, on the contrary. I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably...
Prince Charming: Stop it!
Pinocchio: ...do or do not know where he shouldn’t probably be, if that indeed wasn’t where he isn’t. Even if he wasn’t at where I knew he was, that’d mean I’d really have to know where he wasn't.

Dear Ken,

I did not see Shrek the Third, but what a funny exchange! I believe the most direct answer would be to tell "Charming" "I'm not going to say". No need for all the "hemming and hawing".

Thanks for your kind words about challenging you--I find the same in your posts dear friend. I don't often jump in to these kinds of threads, because I don't have the time. But this is very important. We live in a nation of liars, and serve a Lord who said to us that the Truth will make us free. I do not believe that the Scriptures require us to give up the Jews in the hiding place. But I do think it forbids us from saying "There are no Jews here". I know, for myself, I would falter on those words if they were a lie, and in my faltering, would give them up. Do we really want to be able to tell a lie without "batting an eye"? There are a few TV shows based on people lying. There's a new show, "Lie to Me". I have not seen it--the title turns me off. I'm not saying one should not watch it--it just doesn't interest me. But the premise is that everyone lies, and that very often. The Jim Carey movie a while back called "Liar Liar" sparked a national debate on how it was necessary to lie in order to get by in the world. I disagree, and believe our culture would be well served by a healthy dose of the truth at every level. I'm not talking about "speaking the truth unseasonably" which the LC sees as one of the things forbidden in the ninth Commandment, but what if we were all committed to telling the truth! I believe we would be the better for it, and to see reformed Christians justifying lying--the speaking of untruths--is very disconcerting to me. I believe we are impoverished as a people because we cannot tell the truth, and have difficulty discerning the truth from lying as a result.

We have had, in recent memory, a president that lied under oath to protect himself, and office of the presidency. Is that acceptable? It is not. The best thing for Mr. Clinton would have been to tell the truth, confess his sin, and turn from it to Christ. Now, what an example would it have been, even if it cost him the presidency, publicly to confess his sin, ask God for mercy, and proclaim that Christ died to save sinners! The truth does indeed "release the captives"! How much more would God have been glorified in such an action rather than protecting the office of the presidency, which will someday pass away!

 

[snap_dragon]

...then

I am very thankful that I wasn't the Jew hidden by those remaining silent.

 

[KMK]

It is dangerous thinking to believe that works of necessity and mercy are "exceptions" to the 4th Commandment. I agree that the entire Bible ought to be used to help us to understand the 10 Commandments, but the works of necessity and mercy shown in the rest of the Scriptures to be acceptable on the Sabbath Day are not exceptions, but actually keeping the Sabbath Day.

Perhaps my use of the word "exception" was inappropriate.. however, I do not think that really affects the argument. Whether works of necessity and mercy are "exceptions" to the sabbath command or simply part of keeping the true spirit of the command seem to be matters of phrasing.

I could also say (and I don't think I would be wrong) that the true spirit of the ninth commandment allows lying to save life. The commandment is phrased:"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" (Ex 20:16)

How is lying to save an innocent life bearing false witness against my neighbour?




Ex 20:17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.

The passage explicitly says the midwives saved the children. So it cannot be that the hebrew women were naturally too fast for them. Even if the midwives were deliberately late, why did they bring up the issue of the hebrew women being lively? Anyway we look at it there is a deception.

Also, by saying the midwives obeyed God rather than men, you are essentially saying they broke the strict reading of the fifth commandment. So why is it so impossible to envisage that God would allow people in extreme circumstances to "break" the ninth commandment?



I don't think this is a distinction we can make from the bible. You have said that you consider Joshua's deception at Ai and use of spies acceptable. If there was absolutely no circumstance under which lying was acceptable, the "indirect" deception of Joshua would be caught by the ninth commandment under the same expansive principle set out in the sermon on the mount whereby anger without a cause is classifed as a form of murder.



As I've said, the reason extreme cases are cited is not because I want to use hard cases to define the general law. It is because the bible uses the hard cases.

-----Added 3/27/2009 at 01:33:43 EST-----



Just to avoid giving the wrong impression (unless I already have) I wanted to say again I agree completely with what Ben has said here.

Dear Mark,

Thank you again for the exchange. I have made a distinction, as I believe the Scripture does against "speaking an untruth" as the Larger Catechism defines it, and a feint maneuver, which is quite different from this.

Further, when you offer your interpretation of the action of the Hebrew midwives, remember that to "save the men children alive" requires nothing more than a passive allowing them to live, as I have said before. Theirs is not a lie. And, how do you know that they lied? Why would you assume that they're lying rather than telling the truth. If they feared God, they would be more likely to be "truth tellers" rather than "liars". As for the 5th Commandment, we must obey God rather than men, and not obey unlawful commands even of superiors, for no one has the authority to command us to sin. As protecting Jews from the Nazi's at the door, no one has the authority to command us to give them up to die, but also no one has the authority to excuse us from telling a lie.

As for your assertion that it is alright to lie in order to save life, I would simply say that the Apostle forbids such a procedure. (Romans 3.8) We are forbidden from doing evil that good may come. You will undoubtedly say, how do you know it is evil? Because God forbids it. Show us one example from Scripture where lying is commended. We have seen the Hebrew midwives, and Rahab, and it has been shown on both accounts that their commendation has nothing to do with lying. If this is a Scriptural and Godly principle, why then is the Scripture silent on such behavior?

I do believe that we are not required to tell the whole truth in every instance, that there is a certain amount of deception that may be acceptable in State-craft and warfare. But I believe that each case must be undertaken carefully. Again, what would a Godly government do? How would they order their activities if they truly cared about the 9th commandment?

Finally, I believe your comparison of the Sermon on the Mount to Joshua's actions at Ai to be a non-sequiter. I don't believe Joshua's actions were exceptions to the ninth Commandment, but lawful strategies for making war.

-----Added 3/27/2009 at 02:47:26 EST-----

As usual Rev Ruddell, you really challenge my thinking. Thank you!


---------------

But, as a humorous aside, was Pinocchio guilty of sin in Shrek the Third?

Prince Charming: You. You can't lie. So tell me, puppet, where is Shrek?
Pinocchio: Uh, hmm, well, uh, I don't know where he's not.
Prince Charming: You're telling me you don't know where Shrek is?
Pinocchio: It wouldn’t be inaccurate to assume that I couldn’t exactly not say that it is or isn’t almost partially incorrect.
Prince Charming:- So you do know where he is?
Pinocchio: Oh, on the contrary. I'm possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably...
Prince Charming: Stop it!
Pinocchio: ...do or do not know where he shouldn’t probably be, if that indeed wasn’t where he isn’t. Even if he wasn’t at where I knew he was, that’d mean I’d really have to know where he wasn't.

Dear Ken,

I did not see Shrek the Third, but what a funny exchange! I believe the most direct answer would be to tell "Charming" "I'm not going to say". No need for all the "hemming and hawing".

Thanks for your kind words about challenging you--I find the same in your posts dear friend. I don't often jump in to these kinds of threads, because I don't have the time. But this is very important. We live in a nation of liars, and serve a Lord who said to us that the Truth will make us free. I do not believe that the Scriptures require us to give up the Jews in the hiding place. But I do think it forbids us from saying "There are no Jews here". I know, for myself, I would falter on those words if they were a lie, and in my faltering, would give them up. Do we really want to be able to tell a lie without "batting an eye"? There are a few TV shows based on people lying. There's a new show, "Lie to Me". I have not seen it--the title turns me off. I'm not saying one should not watch it--it just doesn't interest me. But the premise is that everyone lies, and that very often. The Jim Carey movie a while back called "Liar Liar" sparked a national debate on how it was necessary to lie in order to get by in the world. I disagree, and believe our culture would be well served by a healthy dose of the truth at every level. I'm not talking about "speaking the truth unseasonably" which the LC sees as one of the things forbidden in the ninth Commandment, but what if we were all committed to telling the truth! I believe we would be the better for it, and to see reformed Christians justifying lying--the speaking of untruths--is very disconcerting to me. I believe we are impoverished as a people because we cannot tell the truth, and have difficulty discerning the truth from lying as a result.

We have had, in recent memory, a president that lied under oath to protect himself, and office of the presidency. Is that acceptable? It is not. The best thing for Mr. Clinton would have been to tell the truth, confess his sin, and turn from it to Christ. Now, what an example would it have been, even if it cost him the presidency, publicly to confess his sin, ask God for mercy, and proclaim that Christ died to save sinners! The truth does indeed "release the captives"! How much more would God have been glorified in such an action rather than protecting the office of the presidency, which will someday pass away!

I must confess that, because I dislike confrontation, lying is one of my 'besetting' sins. I have found two things helpful in pounding my flesh into submission in this area:

1) Consider all of my actions as to whether, if discovered, I would feel the need to lie about.

2) Striving to be 'swift to hear, and slow to speak'. (Obviously, the less talking you do, the less you are likely to lie)

I have a long way to go but hope that the Lord will work in me the same conviction He has in you, brother.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Dear Ken,

Your candor is very winsome. Would that we all had that desire! This brings up another point about how we hear. We ought to have the kinds of relationships with one another that encourage truth telling, which would include being patient, kind, and desiring to believe the best of one another. Knowing that we are committed to one another no matter what, (of course always under Christ and His commands) "promotes the truth between man and man". As a pastor, and I'm sure you've experienced this as well, we often are the last to hear the truth, because folks desire the Pastor to have a complimentary view of themselves, and it is often believed that to hide their misdeeds will support this view. For that reason, I apply my best efforts encourage my congregation to speaking freely with me when they are having trouble. In counseling a couple this last week I told them, "whatever bad things you see in me, I know many more about myself. Don't hesitate to call me if I can help". This kind of honest humility, especially from the Minister, promotes truth-telling.

 

[snap_dragon]

Originally Posted by snap_dragon View Post

I am very thankful that I wasn't the Jew hidden by those remaining silent.

And we're very thankful you're not a Jew, period.

...or a Christian from the Romans if that scenario works better for you.