I used to work with a guy named Eric who was, at that time, working his way through the philosophy program at Talbot. One of our favorite topics of debate (for there were many areas of disagreement between us) was Biblical ethics. Especially, whether or not lying could be used to God's glory.
Our test case was the story of Rahab, the harlot, and her defense of the Israelite spies (Joshua 2:1-14). While Eric asserted that Rahab's deceit, being beneficial to the Israelite spies by preserving their lives, was the morally right thing to do, I asserted that Rahab's protection of the spies was God glorifying, but the means she used in doing so, lying, was still immoral.
Eric attempted to strengthen his case by defining "lying" as an "immoral" use of deceit. So that lying was therefore always wrong, but being deceitful was not necessarily so. I held to a bit more simplistic definition of lying as verbal deceit, or simple, purposeful falsification; which I believe to be the more widely accepted definition. In my case, Rahab obeyed one law, Exodus 20:13, the preservation of innocent life, while breaking another, Exodus 20:16 with Hebrews 6:18, John 8:44, and 1 Corinthians 13:6. I asserted that lying was not her only option, and the laws God has given us will never be set against each other so that we must decide which action in any given situation is the "lesser evil."
Eric, it seems, was working from a love-guided situational ethic. Basically, whatever action serves love is morally right because it serves love. Rahab's lie preserved the lives of the Israelite spies, serving love, and was therefore glorifying to God. I believe, with qualification, in the same love-guided situational ethic. That qualification being this; there exist, in Scripture, God-given maxims that define what love is and does, ie., the Ten Commandments, or 1 Cor. 13:1-8. These maxims do not leave the loving action entirely up to our discretion in any given situation, but guide us in understanding what that loving action will be in a general way. In Eric's situational ethic, love demanded that Rahab preserve life, and since lying was a means to that end, lying was justified. While in my situational ethic, love demanded that Rahab preserve life AND do so through some means other than lying since scripture teaches that love is truthful (1Cor.13:6).
Luke 6:35 in the NASB reads, "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men." Here we see Christ teaching that even those we consider enemies are to be loved, and our actions towards them are to be governed by love as well. So, from my side of the argument, Scripture teaches us what love is, and that our actions are to be guided by love, which is to be extended to our enemies as well as everyone else, leaving the easy, convenient option of lying outside the boundaries of God-honoring action.
All of this has been running through my mind lately, and I've begun to think that there was something both Eric and I were missing. Eric's Love-guided ethic leaves too much in the hands of the agent, using the cloak of love to disguise any desired action as justified. My ethic corrects that problem to a significant degree with love-defining maxims found in Scripture that guide our understanding of righteousness, yet even this ethic seems awkward when applied to Rahab’s situation. Maybe you’ve noticed that I have yet to say anything relating to the title of this blog. This is where my recent thoughts come in to play, and where I’d love some feedback on the question I've been pondering.
Is deceit, like a gun, sword, or spear, a legitimate war-time weapon? The sword is a weapon that can be used in a righteous or unrighteous manner. Cutting off my neighbor's head would be murder and an immoral act, worthy of punishment. A man found guilty of multiple murders in a court of law and sentenced to death having his head cut off by the executioner, would be a just act, and therefore righteous. The God-given law of equality, life for life, justifies the use of the sword in this manner, when the man has been found guilty in a court of law. However, in wartime, there is no court of law on the battle field and yet the soldier can be justified in his use of the sword. Is it possible, that, like the sword, lying could be a justified weapon given the specific context of war? In the battle, a man is friend or foe, and worthy of life or death, aid or violence, based on his allegiance. We owe the truth to all whom we owe love. Though we owe love to the enemy, war seems justified by Scripture as long as it is prompted by righteous convictions, and it seems that within this context, the only act of love to be given (and yet not required) would be the chance to repent. So once again, my question to which I have yet to answer satisfactorily in my own mind, is, does the context of war legitimize lying, or deceit, as a weapon?
p.s. I'm not too happy with the way this came out, not sure why, so forgive me if its not worded very well, or unclear. I just needed to get it out, lol.
