Sunday Sermons
Right is Always Right
Right is Always Right
A popular argument that has circulated for years to prove that right and wrong are not absolute or that the moral standard revealed in the Bible is unworkable, is the example of a family in Nazi Germany. The argument runs something like, “Let's say you were in Nazi Germany during the war and you were hiding a family of Jews in your attic. ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’ is usually described as ‘do not lie’. So if the Germans knocked on the door and asked if you were hiding Jews in your attic, the ‘right’ thing to do is to lie, unquestionably”. Before we precede any further, please note something very important about the following example that is so often used to break down the idea of absolute truth or the credibility of the Bible. If this example proves that truth is not absolute (no absolute right or wrong exist), then it would also prove that there is nothing absolutely wrong with Nazis seeking to exterminate Jews. The problem with undermining the authority in the Scriptures is that we are left with a world in which nothing is absolutely wrong, and in such a worldview it must be conceded that there might be a time when killing innocent people based on their ethnic heritage would be the right thing to do. Some try to argue that the Bible presents nothing special in terms of morality, but simply includes what people have always considered to be wise or good living. Actually, the entire history of mankind proves just the opposite (Romans 1:18-32). In addition, there is a big difference between the morality of the world (Matthew 5:46), and that commanded in the Scriptures (Matthew 5:22, 28; 32; 12:36).
Right and Wrong without God?
I know that people try to argue that right and wrong do exist without God, yet such is an attempt to have the benefits of God’s existence without the responsibility of His existence. If there is no God, then man has no inherent value, the Bible, as well as any other document, is simply human opinion, which means that every view is equally meaningless, furthermore there is no Judgment Day or final accounting, including rewards and punishments for what one has done in this life. In fact, in such a view there are not even any “gray” areas, for the term “gray” infers that a practice is shaded towards evil, or at the most that one is “not sure” and the practice is questionable.
God and His Word
If there is a God who created the universe and mankind, then this God would be wise enough to give to mankind instructions and commandments that do not contradict each other, and a code of morality that does not need to be discarded in certain situations. Why would God tell us not to lie (Revelation 21:8; Ephesians 4:25), if there were many situations in which lying was necessary or the “right” thing to do? Instead of claiming that God has made a mistake in His legislation, maybe we need to be humble and admit that the mistake might be on the part of fallible human beings who “assume” that a certain situation demands lying? (Romans 3:4) After all, who is the one who makes a lot of mistakes in their reasoning and theories, God or man?
Rahab the Harlot
It is has been assumed by many that the Bible gives record of persons who were dishonest and were not punished, for example Rahab lied and deceived in protecting the spies (Joshua 2:1f), yet she is listed among the heroes of faith. It is dangerous to argue that simply because a person was not immediately punished, that God approved of their behavior. Did God approve of Noah’s drunkenness in Genesis 9:21, or Sarah’s lack of faith in Genesis 16:2-5? Others were punished for acting in a deceptive manner and for committing very “small” and seemingly innocent lies (Acts 5:1-11). If we argue that Rahab’s lie was done to seek a good end the same could be said as well for Ananias and Sapphira who were giving money to help God’s people. Let it be noted that nothing in Hebrews chapter 11 commends Rahab for her deception, rather the text says, “after she had welcomed the spies in peace”. To say that she is praised for lying makes about as much sense as saying that she was praised for being a harlot. If we can say, “Rahab lied and deceived, yet she is listed among the heroes of faith” (lying isn’t always wrong), can we argue, “Rahab was a harlot, yet she is listed among the heroes of faith as being a harlot”, therefore adultery and fornication are not always wrong”. In addition, those mentioned in Hebrews chapter 11 are not praised for their sins (Noah, Abraham, Sarah,David). Is David praised for his adultery? (11:32) The very fact that Rahab hid the spies is proof that during a time of war, deception, such as spying, camouflage, secret codes, and so on are acceptable and are not viewed by God as “lying” or “bearing false witness”. The same distinction can be seen between “killing”. The taking of innocent human life is a sin (Genesis 9:6), yet the taking of a human life that has committed a crime worthy of death is not (Romans 13:4; Acts 25:11). Equally remember, that Rahab’s actions did not change the outcome of the coming invasion. The success of the invasion did not hinge upon whether or not the spies escaped. Also we need to be honest concerning who Rahab is. This woman is not a Christian who is trying to get around God’s standards, rather she is a pagan who has believed what she has heard concerning God and wants to get on the right side. We equally need to be honest about why we are tempted to lie. We are not hiding any spies and neither are we presently trying to save Jews from Nazi’s.
Lying and Human Wisdom
The problem with creating hypothetical situations in which people try to undermine the morality of the Bible is that such situations are constructed by human wisdom, a wisdom that is extremely fallible (Proverbs 16:25; Jeremiah 10:23). To really know if lying in a certain situation would be truly “good”, one would have to know all the ramifications of that act, and also how that act affected the morality of the person who lied. Typically stories that seek to undermine God’s word always assume that the course of action taken worked out in the end. In effect, one would have to be omniscient or divine to rule on such a case. Consider the following examples:
Peter: From a human point of view, Peter’s denial of Christ seems to make sense, after all he was trying to stay near by to see what would happen to Jesus, yet Peter ended up denying Christ (Matthew 26:74-75). Peter could have reasoned that lying was necessary, because to admit to be a disciple of Jesus would have placed his life in danger, yet his life was not in danger. In addition, notice that lying in this case only backfires and instead of making the situation more manageable it only serves to create a more difficult situation. This is crucial because often people are tempted to lie in hopes of avoiding a potentially stressful or difficult situation. The truth is that it often only serves to get us in more, not less trouble.
Abraham: In Genesis 12:10-20, Abraham wants Sarah to lie about their relationship, for he figures that the Egyptians will kill him if they discover that Sarah is his wife (12:11-13). If not for God’s intervention, Abraham would have lost Sarah to Pharaoh and no Messiah would have ever come through his lineage. In fact, Abraham ends up being rebuked by Pharaoh (Genesis 12:18-19). At various times people will try to argue that in certain situations a lie might be necessary, but John Davis reminds us, “God honors truth. It is presumptuous for a man ever to assume that circumstances might turn out badly if he does not lie. His faith in the providential care of God is weak” (p. 177). At times people will argue, “Well I bent the rules and everything worked out!” Everything physically worked out for Abraham only because God intervened! Lying didn’t save Abraham, God did! Morris notes, “As they journeyed back home, it must have been largely in embarrassed silence. Outwardly, of course, everything had gone well. They had not only escaped the Canaanite famine, but had come out of Egypt with increased goods. Sarai was still with Abram and neither had been injured in any way. If they had been worldly people, no doubt they would have been very self-satisfied. But they were not. They had suffered a deep rebuke” (p. 300).
Daniel and His Friends: If lying is acceptable when our life is in danger, then why did
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego needlessly risked their lives when they refused to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s image(Daniel 3:16-18)? If situation ethics has any merit then Daniel (an inspired man) should have known that he could have lied, and claimed that he was not praying to God, in order to escape from the lion’s den (Daniel 6:13f).
An honest look at the “Situation”
Concerning the story that we mentioned at the beginning of this lesson it is very naïve to assume that if one tells the soldiers, “No, there are no Jews in this house” that the soldiers will simply leave. A more realistic view is that the soldiers will search the house, whether one tells a lie or tells the truth. The same is true about someone who breaks into ones house. They will look for innocent victims or valuables no matter what one says or does not say. Then there is the issue of all the circumstances leading up to this event. When an evil regime comes to power, should not Christians have been speaking the truth and speaking against evil? (Ephesians 5:11) Should not Christians have been presenting God’s truth? In such a situation, Christians probably needed as much hiding as the Jews. At this point may I suggest that we will find ourselves into many “moral dilemmas” if we do not let our light shine! They are dilemmas that we have caused by our lack of faithfulness. Remember, God has already told us that then a government crosses the line and demands that Christians go along with unscriptural requests, we are not obligated to obey, instead “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). We are under no obligation to cooperate with, obey, or respect a demand that would cause us to sin against God. Hence, we are under no obligation to hand over Jews, tell the government where they are hiding, and so on. Too many people are under the impression that there is a way to do the right thing and yet escape any suffering (I believe this is the true motive behind most “situation ethic” thinking. If Christians may violate God’s law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end to suffering for the name of Christ, and even an end to self-denial. God expects us to be faithful to Him, even in the face of persecution or death (Matthew 5:10-12; 10:32-33; Revelation 2:10). If the threat of death does not exempt us from being faithful, then obviously no other hardships exempt us either.
Seeing the Big Picture
There must always be the perspective of eternity. Saving people from persecution is a good deed, but the people delivered are still lost if they do not believe in and obey Jesus Christ (John 3:16; 14:6; Hebrews 5:9). Many examples of situation ethics are like this they completely forget about a person’s relationship to God and the fact that the most important thing in life is not physical safety, but rather whether one is obedient to God (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). The situation of soldiers searching one’s house is temporary. World upheaval and turmoil come and go, but eternity is forever. So the important thing in life is not remaining comfortable at all costs or even preserving our earthly life at all costs. What is most important is exiting this life with our integrity and character in tact.
The Fallacy of No-Win Situations
It is clear that God never places one into a situation where the only way out is sin (1 Corinthians 10:13).
Mark Dunagan/Beaverton Church of Christ/503-644-9017
www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net/mdunagan@easystreet.com
