To Lie Or Not To Lie . . .
To Lie Or Not To Lie . . . ?
By Joe E. Trull, Editor
That is the question. The big question faced by politicians and presidents-by corporate executives and newspaper columnists-and even by ministers and missionaries.
In our society, deception has become a way of life. Samuel Waksal, former chief executive of ImClone, recently received a seven-year sentence for stock market fraud. In regard to the related case of Martha Stewart, prosecutor James Comey handed off her case of insider-trading charges to the SEC, noting "This case is about lying."
Defending Stewart, columnist William Safire (NY Times) responded, "Lying is a harsh word; I used it myself about Clinton`s congenital falsification. But perjury is a much harsher word . . . . Martha Stewart has not been accused of perjury."
The recently signed $350 billion tax cut bill has been defended by politicians as "a benefit to all Americans as well as a shot in the arm for the sluggish economy." However, a last-minute change in the legislation by congressional Republicans before passage means the child care credit increase from $600 to $1000 will not be available for families whose income is between $10,500 to $26,625. Those families include 11.9 million children , or one of every six children under age 17. The promise to "leave no child behind" rings a bit hollow!
A group of Christian leaders-some of the most prominent supporters of Bush`s "faith-based initiative"-is expressing frustration over the President`s record on issues of economic justice for the poor. "I am within a hair`s breadth of concluding that the faith-based initiative is a cynical cover for ignoring the poor," said Ron Sider (Evangelicals for Social Action), who was joined by Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, and 34 others.
Proponents of the tax bill also claimed exaggerated results based on lower "Capital Gains" tax rates, but the truth is, as one writer noted, "Most of my co-workers in the $100,000 to $150,000 two-income household will receive no capital gains this year, and less than $100 in stock dividends." Millionaires will do better. More double-speak!
And what about the war in Iraq-especially the moral justification for waging this battle? A letter writer put it well: "Lying to the American people-especially if these lies are directly linked to the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens-is a major offense. President Clinton was impeached for lying about . . . the affair, but his lies did not cause anyone`s death, nor did they cost billions of tax dollars."
Some would retort, "Lying is sometimes justified, especially in wartime." Is it? Ethicists for centuries have debated this question. In fact, major ethical positions can be determined by answering this question, "Is lying ever allowable?"
Absolutists from Augustine to Kant would say, "No-never lie for any reason." Lying corrupts our humanity and robs others of the their freedom to choose the truth. Truth-telling is an obligation for a moral person.
On the other hand, consequentialists from Aristotle to Joseph Fletcher (Situation Ethics) contend the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the end result. Utilitarians claim that actions, including lying, are morally acceptable when the consequences maximize benefit or minimize harm. Some modern voices would add, "What is the responsible action-what fits the total situation?"
Few Christians would question the importance of truth-telling. The Scriptures command, "You shall not bear false witness" (Exod. 20:16) and "Speak the truth" (Eph. 4:15). At the same time the Bible seems to approve the Hebrew midwives lying to Pharoah (Exod. 1:19-20), David`s deception of Ahimelech (1 Sam. 21:1-6), and Rahab`s lies to protect the Hebrew spies (Josh. 2:5-6).
What can we conclude? The biblical ideal for Christians is to be honest and to tell the truth. This is the norm. However, there are rare occasions when you face a moral conflict between two values-such as telling the truth OR saving a life. Corrie ten Boom faced such a choice when she lied to the Nazis in order to save Jews hiding in her home. Just War theories are also developed on this premise.
Baptist missionaries face that conflict in countries where they serve in secret, in order to minister. In this case is lying a "lesser evil" in order to achieve a greater good? Some SBC leaders who would never lie about inerrant biblical truth, have justified deception and outright falsehood to achieve the supposed "greater good" of eradicating liberalism. Some leaders (both moderate and fundamentalist) continue to appoint unqualified persons to positions on the basis of friendships, financial donations, or political alliances. In the words of Jesus, "Do not even pagans do that" (Mt. 6:47)?
It seems clear that there are occasions when it is allowable to tell a "loving lie" in order to achieve a higher good, but most of the time people tell lies and deceive when they should not. In order to have the discernment to know when a "loving lie" is called for, one needs to be habitually truthful. Only then are your "greater goods" truly good and not self-serving.
In a day when deception is common and leaders political and religious twist the truth to serve selfish ends, God calls us to be that company of disciples who like their Lord, are people who walk in the Way, talk the Truth, and live the Life (Jn. 14:6).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
