Articles
Being True to Truth
A recent article documented the beginning of a new university, the University of Austin. One of the co-founders, Peter Boghossian, explained why professors were repelled by the current university climate and drawn to the new school: “They can’t stand the censoriousness; they can’t stand the diversity statements. They can’t stand pretending to believe something that not only do they not believe, they just know it is false, but they can’t do anything about it lest they receive accusations of bigotry or discrimination.”
We are living through a cultural phenomenon, call it what you will – progressivism, cancel culture, Wokeism – of extreme pressure to conform to an imposed agenda. This pressure comes from various sources: hiring standards, mandatory seminars, enforced terminology, social media opinions, etc. The bottom line is that, depending on one’s profession and visibility, higher powers – bosses, teachers, government, media, sometimes even friends and acquaintances – demand support for certain values and punish those who will not conform.
This article does not consider why these things are so; rather, it examines the question: “Do we have the courage to be true to the truth?” Taking a stand for truth is not merely an intellectual exercise, especially moral or spiritual truth. While it involves the intellect in determining what is true, it also involves our integrity: “Am I willing to identify with the truth and defend it against those who would deny its legitimacy? Or, am I pragmatic and willing to say or do anything to protect myself?”
A strange sort of thing happens when we deliberately lie or otherwise pretend that falsehood is legitimate. Advocating for untruth does more than obscure truth in the objective sense. Whether anyone else knows it or not, we know when we have been untrue and it undermines our self-respect. There are deeper considerations than self-service or self-preservation.
Consider, for example, why it is not acceptable to deny Jesus under duress. In our recent gospel meeting Shane Scott quoted from Pliny the Younger wherein he examined Christians to ascertain whether they were true followers of Christ:
“I interrogated them whether they were Christians. If they confessed it I repeated the question a second and a third time, adding the threat of capital punishment. If they still persevered, I ordered them to be led off to execution …
“Those who denied that they were, or ever had been, Christians, who repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered adoration, with wine and incense, to your statue, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose, together with the images of the gods, and who finally cursed Christ—all things it is said that no real Christian can be forced to do—I thought they should be discharged.”
Why would Christians be willing to die rather than invoke Roman deities, offer wine and incense to Caesar and utter a curse of Christ – even if they did these things with the mental caveat that they really didn’t mean them? Why couldn’t they lie for the “greater good” of sparing themselves?
First, Jesus spoke plainly on this whether we understand the full implications or not: “Whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven” (Mt 10:32-33). This was an unconditional demand that allowed no exceptions for extreme circumstances. It was a non-negotiable commitment to the truth of Jesus’ identity and station – King of Kings – that precluded exemptions.
Second, Jesus refused to deny Himself for the “greater good” of saving Himself but rather “witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate” (1 Tim 6:13). His affirmation to the Sanhedrin to be the Christ unleashed a torrent of hatred: “‘You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?’ And they all condemned Him to be worthy of death. Then some began to spit on Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him, and to say to Him, ‘Prophesy!’ And the officers struck Him with the palms of their hands” (Mk 14:64-65). Mere words – words of truth – stoke murderous rage in Satan’s minions when they are defied or threatened by them.
Third, the words “greater good” are in quotes to expose the fallacy that lying to avoid unpleasantness results in a greater good. Jesus’ opponents needed to hear the bold, unambiguous truth that He was the Son of God (Lk 22:70), no matter what their reaction might be. Thus Jesus refused to obscure that truth for His own integrity and for their good. One might think that He could have escaped the plot and lived a while longer if He had lied, but mere length of life does not constitute a “greater good” if it comes at the expense of another’s soul – even a soul intent on our harm.
Fourth, Jesus not only tells the truth, He is the truth: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (Jn 14:6). This is why there is no “big truth” and “little truth”; all truth is crucial for it finds its origin in the mind and being of God. Jesus simply says, “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No,’ for whatever is more than these is from the evil one” (Mt 5:37). The Pharisees had so finely categorized oath-making so that they could lie with impunity. Eventually, the greatest truth of all – their own Savior – meant nothing to them.
And that may be the overriding concern: if we lie about “insignificant” matters, then we build a baseline of falsehood that corrupts our commitment to truth in general and undermines our integrity. This is why something as inane as enforcing arbitrary gender pronoun usage is insidious. It is not a question of politeness; it is a matter of integrity and respect for truth and upholding reality as God defines it. Be true to the truth and stand by it no matter the cost.
