Is it ever ok to lie?

[Ryan Plott]

OH! I get to say something psychology related.

Maybe it has something to with Kohlbergs model of moral development?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlber...al_development

Maybe stage 5 or 6 versus stage 4? Conventional vs. Post-Conventional

Stage 4 is

(authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three; society must learn to transcend individual needs. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force]

Stage 6 is

(universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws.

So maybe a large portion of one's response to this question might be where they're at ? Personally, I believe at times it is alright to lie. Times could be some cited as the Nazis hunting Jews or whether my life is in danger like when my gf asks me if certain articles of clothing make certain body parts look large or small....

(Also, I do think status is a better word than stage for Kohlberg's model)

[Lucas Finch]

. . . but I think that lying to protect the welfare of others may not be wrong...if done out of love. Am I wrong for thinking this? I am not saying this was the motive here...just that lying and telling truth must always come under the greater command to love our neighbor as ourselves.

I am still towards the beginning of Dr. Oord's The Nature of Love: A Theology, but I think that his definition of love may be helpful here.

To love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic/empathetic response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.

I can perceive situations in which a "lie" may, indeed, fit this definition better than the "truth" would. (Some of those situations have already been discussed in this thread.) If all of the Law and Prophets can be summed up in the commandment to love God and others, then that would include the commandment against bearing false testimony.

I think that when discussing this topic it would be helpful to have a definition of what constitutes a lie. Is a lie always a falsehood, or does the knowledge and intent of the person communicating the supposed "lie" matter. For example, the bumper sticker line, "Bush lied, people died." may or may not be accurate. If President Bush truly believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction thus prompting the invasion, but given that they apparently did not have those weapons, then he didn't "lie". He simply acted on bad intelligence. (Maybe his actions were bad, maybe they weren't. I leave that debate for elsewhere.) However, if he knew that they did not have these WMDs and he purposefully and maliciously misled the American people and the international community, then he did, in fact, lie.

Or consider Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and such myths. I am not a parent myself, so I only have so much that I can say here. But is a parent who tells his or her kids on Christmas Eve that they need to go to bed so that Santa can come lying to his or her kids or are they merely playing a game that will someday be made known? I don't see any malicious intent here.

Or one more example. If I am on a trip with my youth group, and when we stop at a gas station I tell one of my middle schoolers that I am out of blinker fluid and that I need them to go inside and ask the clerk for some, and I lying to that middle schooler? (I hope not! This is one of my favorite games!) And even if I am, is this actually a sin, or is it part of my interaction with this student that helps to build up our relationship with each other and develops the love between us?

At the same time, we do need to be cautious when dealing with "untruths". There may be times when telling the truth really is the most loving thing to do, even if it doesn't seem so at the moment. Consider 1 Corinthians 5. I doubt that the "immoral brother" that Paul references will view the actions of the church as being loving, no matter how gently it is done. But if that person is ultimately brought to repentance and saved through the experience, then it is, indeed, more loving to be "brutally honest".

[Cynthia Prentice]

Perhaps this could go to another thread of its own, but I think that lying to protect the welfare of others may not be wrong...if done out of love. Am I wrong for thinking this? I am not saying this was the motive here...just that lying and telling truth must always come under the greater command to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Like lying to Nazis about the where about of Jews, or lying to a robber about where your children are hiding in the house, these seem fairly straight forward.
But what about police sting operations with undercover agents trying to "out" serious criminal activity?

Where should one as a Christian draw the line about lying as sin or lying as fulfilling the second great commandment.

Feel free to put this post somewhere else.

I find the Jewish perspective on this topic very interesting. Even though within Judaism, forms of lying are virtually equivalent to *murder...Jewish law affirms that it is permissible to lie to save a life. Judaism not only permits, but often requires a person to violate commandments if necessary to save a life.

Of the 613 commandments, only the prohibition against murder, idolatry and incest/adultery are so important that they cannot be violated to save a life. This principle is called Pikuach Nefesh (Hebrew: פיקוח נפש‎, "saving of human life") and I stumbled upon it when I was studying the Jewish laws and ethics surrounding death. Pikuach Nefesh mandates that the preservation of human life (whether the life saved is Jew or Gentile) override virtually any other commandment...in other words...almost any Jewish law can be broken to save a human life. This mandate comes from part of the "love your neighbor as yourself" passage...Lev. 19:16 and also Lev. 18:5.

In Judaism, life is valued above almost all else. Because of the generations of people that can descend from one person, taking a single life is like destroying an entire world, and saving a single life is like saving an entire world. Pikuach nefesh has limitations. The individual whose life is to be saved must be a specific, identifiable individual, rather than an abstract or potential beneficiary.

Blessings,

Cynthia

edited to add: We see the principle of Pikuach Nefesh in Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan. The priest and the Levite, both Sadducees, were unwilling to break the cleanliness laws to render aide to the man who was almost dead.


*Very interesting article: Speech and Lashon Ha-Ra
http://www.jewfaq.org/speech.htm

• Gossip and slander are serious sins in Judaism
• Judaism forbids causing any deception or embarrassment through speech
• It is forbidden even if the statement is true
• There are some exceptions that allow tale-bearing

[Shea Zellweger]

One of my favorite philosophers Bob. Have you ever read this?

my first (and still favorite) philosophy primer. The Gospel according to the Simpsons is also useful.

[Diane Likens]

No way would I have missed out on the fun of watching my kids get excited about Santa! That was a HUGE lie, but we had so many years of the children's absolute joy. I think they've all forgiven me for that one, so I'll lie, lie, lie to my grandkids, too!

So, yes, I think it's okay to lie sometimes (depending on the reason).

[Todd Erickson]

My friend Dave shares that growing up, the standard regarding lying applied to him by his Father would be something like "You told me 15 minutes ago that there was coffee in the coffee pot, but it is now empty." "Yes, mom had some coffee." "No, you have lied to me."

I think that we can very much get into the difference between social lies and relationship lies. I'm not really sure how to title it. Lying about your school work, or plagurism, or whether you killed somebody, are bad things.

But on the other hand, if somebody asks how we are, it's generally acceptable to lie and say we're doing fine, especially if we're currently in a deep depression, and really don't want to deal with the nuisance factor of trying to explain to somebody what's going on, knowing that our own faculties for observation and expression are already badly biased. If lying about how I'm doing in this situation is a sin, then I'm well damned at this point.

What is the intent of the lie? This becomes the crux point of the conversation, I think. Anybody who says "It doesn't matter what the intent is" is, in fact, lying if they then say that they are attempting to build community. Social aspects are built entirely on small lies, coverings, admissions, without which we would all kill each other.

[Larry Parsons]

Well, I will just say that I think the Nazi Germany issue is one that is not helpful. The Church chose evil when the majority of the Church sided with the Nazis. The Church in Germany had already lied to themselves that they were the people of God and represented Christ with love in this world. Often we think like Shea, that there is a situational ethic out there. However situational ethics tend to never look back at lingering ethical decisions that were made in the past that influence the present.
To me there is never an acceptable choice between two evils. Scripture is clear that we avoid evil at all cost, even the appearance of evil. We as the Body of Christ must always choose the good. This requires trust and obedience to God even in the most radical situations. The sad truth of Nazi Germany and Franco's Spain was that the Church remained silent to the evil around her. I think telling a lie, I think Dave's answer is spot on, is a sin. At the same time, I think the words of Bonhoeffer help me:

I don't know where you get idea that RC made up the majority of the Christians in the world because it was only the RC that support hitler. I can't think of any Holiness group or any Baptist groups or any kind of Christian group was support Hitler except for the RC.etc. Oh yeah the RC here in America was claiming the German war was a battle for christianity. I disgree with you and Shea but I do agree with the late Dr. Purkiser who I was quoting concerning Carrie Ten Boom situation. Doesn't the scriptures tell us if we sin we have advocate with the Father. By her chosing the least of two evil she was doing good by saving humans that would have been kill.
Thanks
Larry

[Shea Zellweger]

Often we think like Shea, that there is a situational ethic out there. However situational ethics tend to never look back at lingering ethical decisions that were made in the past that influence the present.
To me there is never an acceptable choice between two evils. Scripture is clear that we avoid evil at all cost, even the appearance of evil. We as the Body of Christ must always choose the good.

OK... I'm having trouble seeing how this disagrees with what I said. To me, there is never an acceptable choice between two evils, because IMO there is always a good choice to make. However, choosing something as good in one situation may be choosing something as bad in another. Nevermind lying, here's a pretty solid example:
If a car is speeding up the street, and I am on the sidewalk, it is evil for me to jump in front of that car in order to kill myself. However, if that same car is speeding up that same street and I am on the same sidewalk, but there is another person in the car's path who is not aware, it may very well be the best choice available for me to jump in front of that car in order to save that other person's life.
If we can agree on the above example (and I hope we can), then I don't see why we can't then agree that there are indeed situational components to our ethics. What is the most loving (and therefore most good) decision in one situation may not be the most loving decision in another situation. If we truly believe that the law and the prophets hang upon the laws of love for God and neighbor, then I don't see why we can't conclude that the choice which most fulfills those two laws is by nature the best choice, nor do I see why we should consider the best, most loving choice to be evil.

[Shea Zellweger]

I don't know where you get idea that RC made up the majority of the Christians in the world

They still do. Always have.

because it was only the RC that support hitler. I can't think of any Holiness group or any Baptist groups or any kind of Christian group was support Hitler except for the RC.etc.

Not so. Many German churches supported the Nazi war effort, and many non-German churches chose not to speak out against the Nazis, which is no better than supporting them. They may not have made official proclamations of support, but until their respective governments declared war on Germany, very few churches were speaking out against Hitler.

[Steven Martinez]

I don't know where you get idea that RC made up the majority of the Christians in the world because it was only the RC that support hitler. I can't think of any Holiness group or any Baptist groups or any kind of Christian group was support Hitler except for the RC.etc. Oh yeah the RC here in America was claiming the German war was a battle for christianity. I disgree with you and Shea but I do agree with the late Dr. Purkiser who I was quoting concerning Carrie Ten Boom situation. Doesn't the scriptures tell us if we sin we have advocate with the Father. By her chosing the least of two evil she was doing good by saving humans that would have been kill.
Thanks
Larry

Larry,
You simply need to get the facts. In fact the RCs were officially disallowed by the Nazis as they held allegiance to Rome and not the Reich Church. Hitler rose to power based upon the support of the German Evangelical Church. More Lutherans (the biggest segment of the GEC) voted for Hitler and the Nazis than did Catholics. Karl Barth's famous letter against the GEC was very pivotal in starting the Confessing Church with its best known figure being Dietrich Bonhieffer. The majority of German Christians supported the regime for Luther was highly critical of Jews and some of the earliest anti-Semitic propaganda was in fact pamphlets written by Luther spread through out German. The Nazi Platform of the 1930ss was based upon rebuilding the German Empire as the completion of the Protestant Reformation. Most Protestant churches did not rally against Hitler until 1938 when the Reich began to abolish its ties with the Church because the Cult of Hitler was in full force.

[John Kennedy]

I have difficulty believing that I have some sort of ethical or moral obligation to some low life who would seek to injure me or someone else. IMO they foreited any consideration when they set out to do harm to another. Righteous Christians lied to the Nazis to save some Jews. I applaud them.

[Steven Martinez]

OK... I'm having trouble seeing how this disagrees with what I said. To me, there is never an acceptable choice between two evils, because IMO there is always a good choice to make. However, choosing something as good in one situation may be choosing something as bad in another. Nevermind lying, here's a pretty solid example:
If a car is speeding up the street, and I am on the sidewalk, it is evil for me to jump in front of that car in order to kill myself. However, if that same car is speeding up that same street and I am on the same sidewalk, but there is another person in the car's path who is not aware, it may very well be the best choice available for me to jump in front of that car in order to save that other person's life.
If we can agree on the above example (and I hope we can), then I don't see why we can't then agree that there are indeed situational components to our ethics. What is the most loving (and therefore most good) decision in one situation may not be the most loving decision in another situation. If we truly believe that the law and the prophets hang upon the laws of love for God and neighbor, then I don't see why we can't conclude that the choice which most fulfills those two laws is by nature the best choice, nor do I see why we should consider the best, most loving choice to be evil.

Shea, I do agree. However you used a word in your previous statement that shifted your ethical argument. This argument is clearly based upon virtue. Virtue ethics never use the word or idea of situation. Virtues by definition must be eternal as they are given by God. The virtue of this example is the exercise of charity (love and grace) in that you are freely giving your life for another. In the previous example you gave you justified lying to save a life. This stands true in situation ethics because you "passed" the situation. Yet you do not know if it will indeed save the life. For example the Gestapo (different from the SS [come on people know your History/Military channel]) at your door overs no guarantee that any answer will spare the lives of those who are hidden. For example, you say, "no Jews here." They don't believe you, search the house and take the Jews away and perhaps they take you away as well. Now you lied and you have nothing to show for it. You could, I guess, kill the officer at your door to protect the Jews so they could escape. There are plenty of things one could do and none of them guarantee the safety of those who are hiding.
So what is the virtuous act? I am not sure I know for certain and hypotheticals are not really helpful. Therefore I left with the quote of Bonhoeffer who wrote that in his Ethics. At the end of the day we have to do our best to do what Christ would have done and ultimately pray for Mercy before our God. I think true ethics is not based upon if I can sleep at night. The question then is, is it more loving to lie to potentially save the life of my neighbor or to face the same struggle with my neighbor?
All in all Shea, the problem with the speeding car is not the situation but the person's motive in the situation. Jumping in front of the car is merely a situation. To do so to save life or to end life is something that exists regardless of the situation. It doesn't matter if I jump in front of a speeding marshmallow, if I hold no value to life while doing so is to display the same ethical default than jumping in front of a bus.

[Larry Parsons]

They still do. Always have.

Not so. Many German churches supported the Nazi war effort, and many non-German churches chose not to speak out against the Nazis, which is no better than supporting them. They may not have made official proclamations of support, but until their respective governments declared war on Germany, very few churches were speaking out against Hitler.

Shea, I can just imagine why the non-German churches (what is a non-German churches)didn't speak out against the Nazi. Can you help me out by give me names of the non-church group that supported the Nazi in there take over of Germany. Just because they didn't speak out that doesn't they were really support Hitler. For one reason they didn'y speak out for years we have had "church" leaders and missionary through out the world teaching christians that it was wrong (sin) to get invovle in thing of the gov. they also believe that the world was geting worse and Christ would come and take them out of the mess. I believe this was the reason they didn't speak out. Carrie Ten Boom say this what happen in China the Christians didn't speak out against commumism.
Thanks
Larry

[Steven Burton]

I wonder sometimes if we ever take not that we might have done the same thing in the same situation as Nazi Germany. I mean if you want to see how good people go bad just read the book "The Lucifer Effect". It sheds some very interesting in site into the mind of humanity.

And also I think we should stick with the proposed idea and not go into the argument of which church back who. Because it is a very bad road to travel.

[Todd Erickson]

Shea, I can just imagine why the non-German churches (what is a non-German churches)didn't speak out against the Nazi. Can you help me out by give me names of the non-church group that supported the Nazi in there take over of Germany. Just because they didn't speak out that doesn't they were really support Hitler. For one reason they didn'y speak out for years we have had "church" leaders and missionary through out the world teaching christians that it was wrong (sin) to get invovle in thing of the gov. they also believe that the world was geting worse and Christ would come and take them out of the mess. I believe this was the reason they didn't speak out. Carrie Ten Boom say this what happen in China the Christians didn't speak out against commumism.
Thanks
Larry

The state church in Germany is Lutheran. You really need to get past your open hatred of the RCC and look at some actual history. You could just look at wikipedia, for instance.

[Larry Parsons]

The state church in Germany is Lutheran. You really need to get past your open hatred of the RCC and look at some actual history. You could just look at wikipedia, for instance.

Todd I didn't ask Shea about the state church of Germany I want to know more about non-Germany churches that he mention in his post. I don't know why you are acusing me having open hatred of the RC people which is not true at all. I just don't hold to idea that all of the RC leaders were angels.
Thanks
Larry

[Shea Zellweger]

Shea, I do agree. However you used a word in your previous statement that shifted your ethical argument. This argument is clearly based upon virtue. Virtue ethics never use the word or idea of situation.

I'm not completely up on my Spong (my fav. virtue ethicist), but I get the feeling we're saying the same thing with slightly different words

Shea, I can just imagine why the non-German churches (what is a non-German churches)didn't speak out against the Nazi. Can you help me out by give me names of the non-church group that supported the Nazi in there take over of Germany. Just because they didn't speak out that doesn't they were really support Hitler. For one reason they didn'y speak out for years we have had "church" leaders and missionary through out the world teaching christians that it was wrong (sin) to get invovle in thing of the gov. they also believe that the world was geting worse and Christ would come and take them out of the mess. I believe this was the reason they didn't speak out. Carrie Ten Boom say this what happen in China the Christians didn't speak out against commumism.
Thanks
Larry

You want me to give you the names of non-German church that didn't speak out against Hitler? Well, it's nearly impossible to prove a negative, but I'll go out on a limb and say it was almost all of them.
You have brought up this "sinking ship" claim on several different fronts. I don't think it's nearly as widesweeping as you'd like it to be, and even less so in the 30s.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Shea, I can just imagine why the non-German churches (what is a non-German churches)didn't speak out against the Nazi. Can you help me out by give me names of the non-church group that supported the Nazi in there take over of Germany. Just because they didn't speak out that doesn't they were really support Hitler. For one reason they didn'y speak out for years we have had "church" leaders and missionary through out the world teaching christians that it was wrong (sin) to get invovle in thing of the gov. they also believe that the world was geting worse and Christ would come and take them out of the mess. I believe this was the reason they didn't speak out. Carrie Ten Boom say this what happen in China the Christians didn't speak out against commumism.
Thanks
Larry

Larry, Your statement that I bolded reminded me of a poem by Maurice Ogden, The Hangman:



Silence serves evil more than open support.

[Todd Erickson]

...and when they came for me, there was nobody to speak for me.

[John Kennedy]

...and when they came for me, there was nobody to speak for me.

I think that quote was from Martin Neimoller (sp?????) a German clcergyman of the hitler era. He wrote about a long list of groups that were were persecuted by the Nazis - he hadn't spoken up in their behalf because he didn't belong to that group. So when the Nazis finally came after the Christians, there was no one left to come to their defense.

[Larry Parsons]

I'm not completely up on my Spong (my fav. virtue ethicist), but I get the feeling we're saying the same thing with slightly different words




You want me to give you the names of non-German church that didn't speak out against Hitler? Well, it's nearly impossible to prove a negative, but I'll go out on a limb and say it was almost all of them.
You have brought up this "sinking ship" claim on several different fronts. I don't think it's nearly as widesweeping as you'd like it to be, and even less so in the 30s.

Shea, I have been during some researching to back up some of my claims about the Chrurches not supporting Hitler government. We know the RC did, And Steven point out that the Luthern Church did. Here is what else I found (Now I hope you and Steven and the rest are seated) You guy's maybe right In the 30's There were small group of Methodist and Baptist that was living in Germany. The Methodist leader's of Germany support was very strong supporter of Hitlers government. He didn't agree with everything with everything that Hitler wants. I'm not saying that the small group Baptist did or didn't back up Hitler but if the Methodist leader of of that time in Germany had any influnce at all on Baptist leader's then they to support the 3rd reich. This sinking ship thing that you mention begin in early 20's with Christian leaders who was claiming that it was sin to get involve in state politics and by the 30's the Idea was not dead. this belief may or may not be the reason why that certain churches of Germany refuse to say anything against hitlebut it could have been.
Shea,thanks
Larry

[Shea Zellweger]

This sinking ship thing that you mention begin in early 20's with Christian leaders who was claiming that it was sin to get involve in state politics and by the 30's the Idea was not dead. this belief may or may not be the reason why that certain churches of Germany refuse to say anything against hitlebut it could have been.

I realize this was a common teaching from the 20s on (and still is today), however IMO it is no excuse. Folks can say getting involved in politics is evil all they like, but when a man is rising to power on a platform of genocide and Christians are saying nothing, it's still immoral, no matter what the pop theologians would like them to believe.

[Todd Erickson]

I realize this was a common teaching from the 20s on (and still is today), however IMO it is no excuse. Folks can say getting involved in politics is evil all they like, but when a man is rising to power on a platform of genocide and Christians are saying nothing, it's still immoral, no matter what the pop theologians would like them to believe.

During the Iraq War (last decade) Shane Claiborne and many other Christians traveled to Iraq to help with healing and care for those affected, and were willing to be branded a danger to America by homeland security to act in the way that they believed Christ would act, they would not be silent despite the laws of the land. They would not live a lie, no matter how comfortable that lie was.

[Larry Parsons]

I realize this was a common teaching from the 20s on (and still is today), however IMO it is no excuse. Folks can say getting involved in politics is evil all they like, but when a man is rising to power on a platform of genocide and Christians are saying nothing, it's still immoral, no matter what the pop theologians would like them to believe.

I agree!
Thanks
LP