Truthtelling

As I’ve said before, I have been teaching on Christian ethics Wednesday nights.  One of the more interesting discussions we had was on truthtelling.  Should a Christian always tell the truth?   Should a Christian always be truthful?  Is it black and white?

One thing that I wanted to make sure everyone understood was that truthtelling is more than just voicing something factual.  As Christians, it is our job to discern the truth, even through deception.

For example, what is the truth that consumerism tries to sell us?  If you just buy this product, you will find happiness. You are not whole without this item.  As a Christian, we know that wholeness is only found through Christ.  Living in a consumerist society makes it easy to buy into current trends and become deceived.   Part of truthtelling, as a Christian, is being honest with our culture and ourselves in order to discern the truth.

A few Wednesday night’s ago we used this as a truthtelling scenario:

You live in Germany in the early 1940’s and you are a German.  You are close with your Jewish neighbors and you are keeping them hidden in your home.  Nazi soldiers come to your door and ask you if you are housing any Jews.  What is the right thing to do?  Is it a lie if you tell them you aren’t harboring anyone?

Before you answer this, think about truth on a bigger scale.  Saying that you do not have any Jews in your home when you do is in fact a false statement, but is it a lie?  Isn’t the lie actually that Jews are of no value and are expendable?  Isn’t it the truth that Jews, like all people, have value because they are created by God?  So, if you tell the Nazi soldiers that there are no Jews hiding in your home, which side of truth are you on?

Similarly, if someone who is intent on killing you and your family asks you if your family is home and you tell him no, (when if fact they are hiding upstairs) are you lying?  Maybe lying in any form is wrong…maybe even sinful.  But in these situations, aren’t you forced to choose between two evils…lying being the lesser of the two?

I know these scenarios are hypothetical in nature (though lying about harboring Jews actually happened) yet they force us to consider the bigger picture.  In a time of such extreme injustice and imbalance of power one may be forced to do extreme things for the sake of balance.

In Bonhoeffer's biography, Eric Metaxas enlightens us on Dietrich’s opinion of truthtelling.  Remember, Bonhoeffer was martyred under the orders of Adolf Hitler.  His ethics and theology were placed under extreme pressure.  Bonhoeffer claimed that telling the truth is dependent upon the relationship we have to the person with whom we are speaking.  He explains that parents do not tell their children everything, nor should they.  Children need to be protected from certain issues because they might be frightened or aren’t capable of handling the information.  Bonhoeffer asks, “In what way is a person entitled to demand truthful speech from others?”  He uses an example of a child being asked by her teacher in front of the whole class if her father is an alcoholic. 

Dietrich says,

A teacher asks a child in front of the class whether it is true that his father often comes home drunk.  It is true, but the child denies it.  The teacher’s question has placed him in a situation for which he is not yet prepared.  He feels only that what is taking place is an unjustified interference in the order of the family and that he must oppose it.  What goes on in the family is not for the ears of the class in school.  The family has its own secret and must preserve it.  The teacher has failed to respect the reality of this institution.  The child ought now to find a way of answering which would comply with the rule of the family and the rule of the school.  But he is not yet able to do this.  He lacks experience, knowledge, and the ability to express himself in the right way.  As a simple no to the teacher’s questions the child’s answer is certainly untrue; yet at the same time it nevertheless gives expression to the truth that the family is an institution sui generis and that the teacher had no right to interfere in it.  The child’s answer can indeed be called a lie; yet this lie contains more truth, that is to say, it is more in accordance with reality than would have been the case if the child had betrayed his father’s weakness in front of the class.  According to the measure of his knowledge, the child acted correctly.  The blame for the lie falls back entirely upon the teacher (Ethics, 367-68)

Similarly, the covenant between parents and children demand one type of truth, while a covenant between friends requires another.  Bonhoeffer viewed his relationship with the state (Nazis) as non-covenantal.  He felt that he did not owe them the truth, nor were they in a position to demand it.  

What do you think?

The Christian's Call To Nonviolence

Today, many blogs and websites are discussing the great work of Martin Luther King Jr.  One of my favorite bloggers discussed the nonviolent resistance of the Civil Rights movement.  As posted to the left, the books I have been reading heavily discuss nonviolent and political action.  Bonhoeffer and King were both big proponents of nonviolence.

A few days ago I shared a video that was used for the first class of our ethics series.  One of the books I have been using as my curriculum base is The Moral Vision Of The New Testament by Richard B. Hays (I highly recommend this book!).  As part of our ethics series we discussed the topic of nonviolence, peacemaking and war.  Today, I thought it fitting to post about this issue.  I particularly want to share our class’s conclusions and Hays’s vision of nonviolent ethics in the New Testament.

For our class this past Wednesday I asked,  “Is a Christian called to be nonviolent? Are there any circumstances when we need to be violent?”

As usual, I was impressed with the maturity of our group and the conversation went better than expected.  On an individual level our group felt compelled, even when it doesn’t come naturally, to resist acting out violently.  For Jesus tells us in Matthew 5: 39, “Do not resist the one who is evil…”  However, on a collective level (when there is a third party involved) they were more inclined to act out violently for the sake of others.

Here is one of the scenarios used in class.  Let’s say that you have a concealed weapon (don’t really know why, but just go with it) and a crazed maniac comes into the class and you know that he is going to kill everyone.  In that moment you have a decision to make; act nonviolently and everyone dies or shoot.  What would you do?

After great discussion we turned to the scripture to read various texts* that deal with some of the issues raised. Obviously there isn’t enough room here to discuss everything but I’d like to highlight a few passages.  I want to specifically use portions of Hays’s book to guide the remainder of the post.

Hays uses Jesus’ words from the sermon on the mount as the key text to support Christian nonviolence.  He references the beatitudes as a picture of the reality of God’s kingdom.  Jesus often uses this “upside down” reality to discuss how things are in the kingdom of God.  He uses verbiage like, “ you have heard it said…but I say to you”, which immediately tells us that realities that might make since to us in this world are counter to the realities of God’s kingdom.  Hays points out that Jesus calls us to live out this counter kingdom in our community by being “salt” and “light” and a “city on the hill”(Matt. 5:13-16).

Turning the other cheek is hard.  As stated earlier, it might seem counter intuitive.  The fight or flight response is a theory about the body’s response to perceived threat or danger.  When we feel threatened, we either remove ourself from the situation or fight back.  It is a survival response within all of us.  I am a fighter.  If I feel threatened I want to fight back.  Yet, I have to tell myself (and I often do) that in God’s kingdom I should resist evil.  Though it isn’t intuitive, it is necessary.

Most of us realize this is a reality we need to embrace (though it may be hard).  But what if there is more than one person involved?  What about war?  Is the rest of the Bible unified on this issue?

Many have asked about Soldiers.  What about Luke?  Twice in Luke (once with John the Baptist and once with Jesus) soldiers appear as characters.  Neither John nor Jesus suggest that they abandon their post.  John tells the soldiers to “not extort money… and be content with your wages.”  Jesus is impressed with the centurion’s faith saying, “…not even in Israel have I found such faith.”

What are we to do with these texts?  Many believe that this means that the NT endorses military service. Hays says,

This evidence, taken cumulatively, suggests that the New Testament writers did not see participation in the army as sinful a priori, nor was the question of military service a question being debated in their communities.  The role of these soldiers in the new Testament narratives, however, must be seen in proper context: precisely as Roman soldiers, they serve to dramatize the power of the Word of God to reach even the unlikeliest people.  They are set beside tax collectors (Luke 3:12-13) as examples of how John’s preaching reached even the most unsavory characters…  Even the righteous centurion whose servant is healed by Jesus serves as a foil, a surprising exception whose faith stands in paradoxical contrast to Israel’s lack of faith (Matt. 8:10-13).  The narrative and theological force of this story is analogous to that of the saying, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you” (Matt. 21:31); just as that saying does not necessarily commend extortionate tax-farming and prostitution as continuing practices, so these stories about centurions cannot be read as endorsements of military careers for Christians.  To be fair, however, there is nothing within the New Testament itself that explicitly excludes or forbids such careers.

Powerful.  Is the New Testament unified on this issue?  Do you agree with this?  What are your thoughts? 

*Here are the specific scriptures we referenced in class.   

NT – Matthew 5:38-48; Matthew 26:52-54; Mark 11:15-19;

OT – Deuteronomy 19:15-21; Deuteronomy 20:10-15

PAUL – Romans 12:14-21; 2 Corinthians 10:3-6

SOLDIERS – Luke 3:14-15; Luke 7:1-10 

(Am I missing any that would have been good for discussion?  I am sure that I am.)

Liberal or Conservative? Yes.

Happy Birthday Martin Luther King Jr.!  Tomorrow most of us will have the day off as we celebrate MLK day.  However, Martin was born today in 1929.  I know this well because he and I share the same birthday.

As a boy I grew up fascinated by him because I shared the same day with someone famous.  One of the first books I remember getting (picture shown above) was a small children’s book about his life and movement.  He is a fascinating man with an unbelievable story.  He is a modern picture of what nonviolent resistance looks like.  One of the misconceptions of pacifism is that it is a sign of weakness. True pacifism isn’t backing down or shying away.  When you look at Martin Luther king Jr. you know that.  King’s unbelievable strength and discipline to not fight back defined his mission.

One of the books that I am currently reading is The Autobiography Of Martin Luther King Jr. I really resonate with some of King’s experiences in seminary.  He grew up in a conservative fundamentalist family as I did.  Dr. King shares some of his experiences at Crozer Seminary:

“I engaged in the exciting reading of various theological theories.  Having been raised in a rather strict fundamentalist tradition, I was occasionally shocked when my intellectual journey carried me through new and sometimes complex doctrinal lands, but the pilgrimage was always stimulating… When I came to Crozer, I could accept the liberal interpretation of Christianity with relative ease.  Liberalism provided me with an intellectual satisfaction that I had never found in fundamentalism.”

King continues,

“My former leaning may root back to certain experience that I had in the South, with its vicious race problem, that made it very difficult for me to believe in the essential goodness of man.  The more I observed the tragedies of history and man’s shameful inclination to choose the low road, the more I came to see the depths and strength of sin.  Liberalism’s superficial optimism concerning human nature caused it to overlook the fact that reason is darkened by sin.”

King’s background shaped his theology.  When he left the South for a time he was able to see the goodness of men and the hope of integration.

I often find “liberal” thoughts refreshing when I am around others who are legalistic, traditional and stifling.  At least, many of my views are considered liberal in their eyes.  On the flip side, I often revert back to more basic, conservative thoughts when I am around those who question morality, the Bible or God.  What I am trying to say is, it all depends on the political and cultural climate that I am in.  Do you find this to be true of you?

What Would You Do?

As most of you know, I am a youth minister in Columbus, Georgia.  For our Wednesday night classes we have been going though a Christian ethics series.  I begin every class with “How should a Christian respond to…” and then I allow our teens to have an open forum of discussion.  My goal isn’t to control or steer the conversation but to allow opinions and views to come to the surface.  After some mature, and civil discussion, (our teens have really impressed me) we look at applicable scripture.  We have discussed murder & nonviolence, abortion, divorce & remarriage, and homosexuality.

We began our ethics series with this video:

 What would you do?  Surprisingly, most of my teens said that they would not turn the wheel.  They argued that if you choose to turn the car you willfully enter the situation that you once had no control over.  What do you think?

Obviously this hypothetical scenario is unrealistic, but it makes for some fun, lighthearted conversation.  I intended it as so, because the later topics (e.g. divorce, abortion) hit a little closer to home and become a bit personal.