(6 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...Is it ever OK to lie in order to promote the truth? Even in Christian circles?
In my previous post I talked about an evangelical Christian who flat-out lied about things I’ve said and written. It’s also possible, of course, that he simply repeated a complete falsehood he had heard about my views without bothering to take a minute to check. That too would be bad, but different. But to give him the benefit of the doubt, so to say, I’ll assume that as an influential speaker on scholarly matters and a representative of conservative evangelical Christianity he usually does his homework.
Whether he himself was lying or not, the phenomenon of lying to convey the truth is interesting and worth thinking about.
I’ve thought and read a lot about it over the past 10-15 years, especially
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
People don’t always lie because they prefer falsehood. Sometimes they lie, or simply fail to examine a convenient falsehood, because they believe they’re serving a greater truth. That temptation reaches far beyond evangelicalism, and beyond Christianity itself, and perhaps explains why Carroll’s claim could live so comfortably in that room. But it doesn’t justify it. Lying is tempting, and deeply human. It is still wrong.
My view is that, whether in ancient times or in the modern world, people who tell falsehoods in order to establish their own claims or authority generally know that they are lying.
I do not see in such people any real sincerity before God. Rather, I feel that the organization to which they belong, or their own power and authority, has become the object of their worship.
Throughout history and across cultures, many political leaders have been tempted to deny inconvenient truths simply because they are inconvenient. They know that convenient falsehoods can be a very efficient way to move people.
For that reason, I do not think such people are especially concerned about what scholars like you may think. Their focus is not on academic integrity, but on influencing the many people who do not have scholarly knowledge.
In such behavior, I see no reverence for truth or God. I see only the worship of power.
The sad reality is as you mentioned in your last post that a shocking amount of evangelicals go out of their way to NOT seek truth. They actively cover their eyes or simply ignore the things they hear when they are confronted with different points of view on the subject of their religion. They are more than happy living their comfortable lives with an assurance that their sins will be forgiven than in digging for the truth of the matter. I’ve met a few evangelicals in my day who were far beyond doubling down and ignoring everything and everyone else.
And don’t forget 1 Kings 22, where God looks for and finds a deceiving spirit to lie to King Ahab: “Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you.” I Kings 22:23 And when Jesus told his brothers he wasn’t going to the Passover in Jerusalem but went secretly wasn’t that a lie? John 7:8-10 And frankly, like Rahab, if ICE shows up asking for my immigrant friend I’m still going to lie to them!
Hi Bart, I’ve just published a thorough critique of your new book on my Substack “The Savior Complex” called The Jesus Apologists: How Bart Ehrman’s “Love Thy Stranger” Protects His Image – https://thesaviorcomplex.substack.com/p/the-jesus-apologists-how-bart-ehrmans
Thanks for letting me know.
Good luck on your having the time to read all that!
Bart, he makes some telling points, especially on the failure of Jesus to condemn slavery, and makes a plausible case for viewing Jesus not as a moral genius, but as an exploitative cult leader. But I think he neglects the traditionally understood urgency of Jesus’s message, which could explain some of what he criticizes. I hope you will read his article and respond here.
Hi Bart,
As others above have said, it would be really good to get your response in relation to this point about scholarly objectivity regarding the character of Jesus – ie does an objective reading of the NT record really point to a moral/spiritual leader with something valuable to say, focussed through apocalyptic belief, versus something else eg exploitative cult leader, or other?
Personally, I’m very much aligned to the former, but realise I ought to (objectively 🙂 ) review my position.
Thanks! Andrew
I’m not sure there is anything like “objectivity” when it comes to weighing evidence, since well-meaning and honest people do weigh it differently — not just about Jesus but about everything. But I would say that nearly everyone who reads the evidence for Jesus without wanting to discredit Christianity — that is, including scholars who don’t have much of a personal stake in the matter — undrestand Jesus as an earnest teacher with important things to say, not a cult leader; and most scholars continue to think that his teachings were rooted in an apocalyptic view of the world.
I think it is also a human nature “self sacrifice” problem. Many people have built their lives and finances to various degrees on their beliefs. It can be very difficult and costly to change views, especially when religion IS your business (minister, books, etc.) of a particular faith. It some cases it takes a lot of courage to publicly change your beliefs. I have personally privately challenged ministers ober things they said from the pulpit. They didn’t admit to me they thiught i was right, never said publically they were wrong ir changed. But they NEVER (years) said it again, even in sermons on same topic. In a different area but similar problem was slavery. I remember reading some prominent slave holders personally deciding slavery was wrong, but setting their slaves free would bankrupt their families, so continuing. The personal or family cost was too great to them to follow what they actually believed true.
Agree. The other human nature “self sacrifice” problem is changing personal commitments, e.g. after once committing one’s life to Jesus, admitting that the base facts which led to this commitment can be wrong, therefore that person no longer believes; well that is just quite difficult. For those who may be struggling with this, I can attest – as well as other blog members – that life can still be quite good and rewarding.
I think BeScofield’s article is full of blunders. I’m not going to take the time to go back and do research to identify them in her long article, nor take the time to research relevant facts in order to write a response. But I want you to know that I was totally unimpressed with her article. I do not take her seriously.
Producer Robert Evans: “There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each differently”
I know his context was different when I heard him say that in a Godfather documentary, but that last sentence is universal when applied to interpretation of scripture in my opinion.
Eusebius forging the Testimonium Flavianum?
I’m totally with Bart on this one… not that he needs my help. Robert James Scofield, a man who would prefer to be a woman, is a San Francisco activist. He has pursued a Master’s of Divinity. He seeks to destroy Christianity structurally by making Jesus into a liar and small-time egotist. He would leave Christians with no religious foundation. He hates Jesus, Christianity and Bart Ehrman about equally. He is obsessed and so goes on andon. He uses ridicule of Jesus and Bart as butts of his venom. Bart, on the other hand, recognizes that Christianity has provided a cohesion for civilization needed to constrain the chaos that exists when men revert to their evolutionary origins as hunter predators. Christianity has taught men for 20 centuries the unique, among mammals, concepts of kindness, love, etc. Mr. Scofield believes that Christianity is all based on the misinterpretation of instuctions to a small group of followers by a man not woth noticing, and that Bart Erhman only defends it because of his residual Christianness from his early life. I know which side I’m on.
Never heard of him. Wonder if he’s related to the Scofield of the Scofield Bible!
There is a note above my comment: Your comment is awaiting moderation. What does that mean?
It usually means I haven’t answered it yet. But I seem to have answered all the comments I’ve received. Does it still say that?