|
Post by newburydave on Jul 31, 2008 17:38:08 GMT -5
One more thought.
Pastor Richard Wormbrandt (founder of Voice of the Martyrs) in his book Tortured for Christ titled one of the chapters "If that man were Christ would you give him your blanket?" In that chapter he developed the thought that every one of our actions and decisions must reflect devotion to our Savior or we are spiritually false.
As fashionable as the "reverence for Life" ethos of Albert Schweitzer is today it is a pantheistic value not a Christian value. As Christians we struggle to prolong life in the hope that unbelievers will repent during the "borrowed time" that modern medicine can give them or that seasoned saints will have more productive months or years to witness for their Lord.
It is not life that is precious but the hope that longer life will be an opportunity for grace to operate. That gives value to saving lives. Prolonged life devoted to sin heaps up more pain and wounds for the heart of God. Sin (like Lying) short circuits God's will and makes that hope for grace into a mockery. If lying saves our life then we will trust in lies not in God.
My wife and I have thought several times in the last few years that it would be easier to just die and go home to Heaven than to continue wrestling with the perversity of living in this world among sin broken people. But though my strength is failing I am my Lords to will and to do His good pleasure. If He wants me to keep on wrestling with the denizens of hell in the darkening trenches of this battlefield earth, so be it. I'll give it my best shot one more time. (I'm currently in my 7th inning of overtime living).
Every martyr has made the choice that truth is more important than life. Jesus was born, lived, suffered and died as "a witness to the truth." Most orthodox Jews that I know hold the truth of God as more important than life itself, that's why the vast majority of them didn't try to fight back against the Nazi's holocaust or the other pogroms throughout history.
One of the "hard sayings of Jesus" is:
Luk 14:26 (NLT) (26) "If you want to be My disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison—your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be My disciple.
Of course as the text hints at the correct understanding of this verse uses the "how much more" standard; that our love for Jesus has to so eclipse all other relationships that out natural loves looks like hatred by comparison. The lesser love always yields to the greater in motivating actions.
You will notice in the Gospels that after he started talking like this many turned away from following Him. He only wanted sold out people to follow Him, because He knew that half way devotion would only open the door for the "seven times worse" situation He warned about later. His oft repeated "take up your cross" admonition said to the Jews of that day, "Until you're ready to crucify the world and everything in it to follow me, don't even think about starting."
So for me personally it is not a desire not to lie. For me it is a my personal devotion to the Person, Legacy and Character of my Lord, Savior, King and soon to return Bridegroom, Jesus. Being worthy of His love is more important than anything else in this world, even life itself.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Jul 31, 2008 18:20:47 GMT -5
So ... just to make this concrete ... you are saying you would endorse telling searching Nazis the truth?
For scriptural support, I would go back to the aforementioned examples (David, etc.). If you need something more specific, I'll try to find chapter and verse for you.
|
|
|
Post by JC Lamont on Jul 31, 2008 18:24:08 GMT -5
Jeff -- love you post. I too have pondered the "God lied to Pharaoh" and when I posted it on forums got hit with the God doesn't lie, etc. etc. I agree with you completely. When the Bible speaks of lying it is usually (always) either in regards to committing perjury or making up false things about someone else to get them in trouble or destroy their reputation. There is also the lie of claiming to be innocent when you are guilty to try and get out of trouble (What cookies? I didn't eat any cookies).
It wouldn't surprise me at all if there should be different words to describe lying to get out of trouble or lying to save a life. English has one word for love -- love -- where as Greek has three. We love pizza and God at the same time. We use it so loosely it actually has more impact to tell someone that God likes them then to say God loves them.
I guess what I am saying is that it wouldn't surprise me if lying as a evil deflection is a completely different "word" to God than the one listed in the Bible to not do.
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Jul 31, 2008 22:56:17 GMT -5
I'm not saying I don't lie, and I really do like you guys, and I'm so grateful I found this site, but, wow. I did not expect so much relativism in a group of Christians--or with the RL friend I talked to about this and who agreed with all you neo-pagans Bear in mind that speaking truth and refraining from lying doesn't mean spilling your guts at every occasion. Jesus never lied, but that doesn't mean He answered every question. Just because the Nazi asks the question doesn't mean you have to answer. Change the subject. Talk about how your taxes pay his salary, or you're a good citizen, or. . .potatoes. Jesus also didn't go out of His way to correct those who misunderstood Him and didn't have the capacity to hear the truth. He didn't intentionally mislead or dissemble (I love that word), but He didn't waste His time, either. I think that covers Samuel's situation, too. God told Samuel to tell Saul he had to leave to make a sacrifice. If Saul thought the sacrifice was the only or primary reason, that was his problem. Wow, next you'll be telling me it's OK to have electric guitars in church! * *I play an electric guitar in church.
|
|
|
Post by J Jack on Aug 1, 2008 0:54:02 GMT -5
Heathen! to the electric guitar thing.
The only thing I can think of to say to this is that line from the dark knight which I hear all to often (I work at the movie theater) "sometimes the truth isn't good enough, sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people need to have their faith rewarded."
Could that be true of Christians? That sometimes the truth isn't good enough. Would you lie to an evil person if it was going to save a life they were about to take?
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Aug 1, 2008 2:28:59 GMT -5
Sabre, that's what I'm trying to illustrate by bringing it back to the Nazi thing. I think that illustration is powerful because it is so concrete. Changing the subject is fine, but I can just see how this one plays out:
"Are you hidink any chews?" "So what's it like working for Der Fuhrer? Is the pay good? I've been trying to get on at the SS, and..." "Didn't yoo hear me? Answer the kvestion!" "You really should try this tea. It has the most marvellous..." "Search the house."
And so on. (I could have made a nice little monologue here, but I'm already treading on thin ice, so I think I'll leave it as it is.) The trouble with hypotheticals is that they can always go so well or so badly (particularly among authors), but there are a whole bunch of people who are just as determined in their beliefs as we are in ours, and when their real-life determination clashes with ours, we need to make sure that we make the wise decision, one that is guided by principles that are firmly founded in Christ, and not just simplistic one-size-fits-all responses.
Incidentally, your electric guitar reference makes me think of an old Far Side cartoon:
"Welcome to heaven. Here's your harp." "Welcome to hell. Here's your accordion."
|
|
|
Post by myrthman on Aug 1, 2008 17:28:27 GMT -5
Does the admonition to "speak the truth in love" have any bearing here? Speaking the truth without love would seem to go against this. Much like an electric guitar with no amp (couldn't resist). It would be pointless. I guess you could swing it like an axe at the stage but without an ear-shattering explosion of static and feedback (that's why rockers do that, right?), why bother? Speaking the truth w/o love (the real power of the Gospel. Re: John 3:16, Romans 1:16) is more harmful than helpful. Is the converse also true? Speaking a lie in love? An amp can still be used with other instruments. Food for thought...
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Aug 1, 2008 18:18:40 GMT -5
Meh, I have a semi-hollow body (http://www.rivercityamps.com/electra/burgpro.php). The chords still come out without the amp, but the sound isn't as effective. You can sing to it, but would you want to?
I think there's a huge disconnect here between those who believe lying is sin and those who don't. Thus taken, can you sin "in love"? Nope. Love that puts another above God is not love, it's idolatry, emotional desperation, lust, and/or fear. The first time that happened, Adam followed Eve out the gates.
I'm not saying that lying doesn't sometimes look like the right thing to do, or that the world wouldn't think it justified, but we are not of the world. You are responsible for what God has given you. That includes the works He has prepared before hand, but it primarily includes your personal integrity. In the case of the Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law), You are not responsible for the Nazis' actions; they are. You are not responsible for keeping the Jews alive; God is, in accordance with His plan.
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Aug 1, 2008 20:21:36 GMT -5
On that token, does a mother or father have a responsibility to keep their baby alive? Or is it all in God's hands? If someone's life has been placed in our power, do we then sacrifice it to the god of piety and wash our hands of it? If, as you say, we are responsible for what God has given us, then would that not apply to lives as well as the capacity to determine what the prevailing right thing to do would be in that situation? Call it moral relativism if you like, but I fail to see how lying to Nazis to save a human life would be a sin. Remember that listed first of the things that the Lord hates are "hands that shed innocent blood." If one had to have a "lying tongue" temporarily to save the innocent from those who would shed their blood, I think it would be forgiven. Let's just say that if I had to answer for one or the other, I'd rather be called into judgment for the lie than for the blood on my hands.
|
|
|
Post by myrthman on Aug 2, 2008 13:57:40 GMT -5
It's a good thing both can be repented of and washed away in the Blood of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by J Jack on Aug 2, 2008 17:24:04 GMT -5
Indeed, but it is right for a believer to sin because they know they can be forgiven?
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Aug 2, 2008 18:01:04 GMT -5
"May it never be!"
"What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?"
Rom 6:1-2
That phrase makes me giggle.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Gerke on Aug 3, 2008 9:40:20 GMT -5
Wow, I go away for a week and look what happens! LOL.
I agree with newburydave and others who say that lying as a practice, as an effort to advance one's personal situation, is wrong. I can't think of an example of when lying for that purpose would not be a sin.
And I agree with newburydave and others who say that we shouldn't be looking for how close to sin we can get before we're over into it. I think an objective reader would agree that that's not what the intent of my original post was.
I agree with Divides that it's not always adequate to either tell the truth or refuse to answer. When the Hebrew midwives were called to explain to Pharaoh why they weren't killing the boy children, they didn't say, "My, what a lovely throne you have." If they had not given an answer at all, they probably would have been replaced and someone else would've been assigned--someone who would kill the boy babies.
God never endorses sin. That's a given. And God hates the lying tongue.
However, I believe we're in the "meat" here, as Scintor said. I believe CrimsonMoon may be correct in her hypothesis that God has an entirely other category in His mind when it comes to deceiving in order to protect the innocent from the evil.
I can't get away from what God told Moses to say to Pharaoh. I know we want to protect God from having any taint of what our understanding of sin is, but I think we have to look at this Scriptural example and realize that He is of course not sinning when He instructs Moses to say these things. Therefore if it appears to us that God is lying--in the sense of being sinful--then the error is in our limited human understanding.
To me, seeing God deceive evil people in order to save the vulnerable is quite freeing. I've often wondered what I would do in such a situation, if forced to choose between telling the truth and thus causing the innocent to suffer, saying nothing and thus protecting no one (including those in my care to protect), or uttering a deception that protects the innocent. Now I know what I'm going to do. I'm going to look at the evil one and do what it takes to protect the ones God always wants protected: the oppressed and vulnerable and innocent.
And even if it were to be proven that it was a sin to lie in such a situation, I'm left with a simple question: which would I rather have on my conscience, a lie that saved a dozen people from terror, rape, sodomy, torture, and murder, or "a little righteousness" that maintained my own no-lies integrity but caused the terror, rape, sodomy, torture, and murder of innocents in my care? I'm no engineer, but I have no trouble doing this math.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Teskas on Aug 3, 2008 18:27:54 GMT -5
I'd support Jeff on this one, and I don't think a person would need to feel he had sinned if he lied, for example, to a Gestapo search party.
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life," Jesus said. (Jn 14:6) We need to focus that God is the source of life, promotes it, and asks us to serve it. (This is why, for example, I think Christians lead the advocacy of "Right to Life". It isn't that the rest of the world doesn't know homicide is wrong. The moral law is written on the heart (Rom 1:19-21), but many turn from it because it suits them.)
We are at war with death, and though we know our bodies will die, eventually death will be no more. We are also at war with untruth. On some level we know with whose cause we join when we lie. Death and Untruth it seems are close allies and abhorrant to the Christian life.
Holiness supports life, and sin undermines it. But do we sin when we commit an opacity, when we do not disclose the truth to prevent a great evil from being done? Scripture may provide the answer.
Remember the story of the Blessing of the Firstborn, how Isaac was blind, and Jacob deceived him? Deception like that is a lie, but the rabbinical authorities say Jacob did not sin. The reason they give is that Esau had misled his father into believing he lived a righteous life, when in fact he was an evil man. Rebecca knew this and knew it would be wrong for Esau to inherit the Blessing. The rabbinical commentators explain that Esau himself had spent his whole life deceiving Isaac, and that it was permissible to resort to falsehood in order to undermine the deceit that he had perpetrated. In other words, had Isaac been able to know the truth he would never have bestowed the Blessing on Esau.
I know most likely the readership here is not Jewish, so perhaps rabbinical commentaries do not carry persuasive weight with a Christian. This doesn't preclude drawing some interesting lines of thought from the example, and looking at the fundamental matter at stake. Blessings (i.e., good things which come from God) support life. A dead thing cannot receive them. It would be wrong, for the sake of factual accuracy (a form of the truth), to try to support a dead thing at the expense of a living thing.
I hope everything I've said hasn't amounted to mere casuistry, and that I don't mislead anyone reading this. Truth is always to be preferred, factual accuracy included. Jesus is the Truth AND the Life. Truth and life belong together, and not at odds with each other. So, yes, I'd lie to the Gestapo, and know that God wasn't going to be disappointed with me.
|
|
|
Post by J Jack on Aug 3, 2008 18:56:14 GMT -5
So perhaps a better question is when is a sin not a sin?
If you saw a pedophile assaulting a child (yes, I'm sorry that this is...well...bad, but it happens in our world and we should all understand that) and the only way to stop that was kill them would you do it? It's an extreme situation, but like the lying I personally would not hesitate. If it means that someone is spared some horrible thing I would gladly commit a sin to preserve them.
On a side note, our world is full of situations like that. My manager today mentioned something about not watching horror movies because there was enough horror in the world. If committing a sin alleviates some of that would you do it?
|
|