QC and SG accountability (31/3/17)
I asked questions I had picked up from the last Disciplesmaking Task Force (DMTF) meeting. There was a comment there as to how SG leaders had perhaps failed to provide spiritual leadership when faced with 2 circumstances: whether it is right to tell a white lie, and whether it was appropriate for someone mourning a family member to join in a Lunar New Year 'lo hei' celebration.
Eugene defined white lies well as lies intended to minimize adverse consequences. They are, I think, also lies where it is hard to verify the truth. They are generally thought to be harmless when believed. Amelia noted that Scripture sometimes commend white lies. There is the case of Rahab (Joshua 2:1ff) who lied and was commended for it (Heb 11:31). Even Jesus' oblique comment in John 7:8, though capable of being interpreted figuratively or as a "I am not yet going", could have been easily misconstrued. The Bible approves of battle tactics that deceive one's enemies. Many of us readily admitted that we told white lies for various reasons: to give hope, to protect others, to conceal damaging knowledge and so forth.
My basic principle would be: white lies are always wrong when we try to minimize adverse consequences to ourselves. They may be sometimes the lesser evil of the bad choices we are faced with in life because we are trying to minimize adverse consequences to others. In the latter case, depending on the severity of the adverse consequence that might occur, lying in some way may be permissible. And when we are forced to do this we should certainly not lie in a cavalier, gleeful fashion, but with a spirit of brokenness and regret.
Jesus's injunction to simply answer with "Yes or No" (Nt 5:37) is a call to demonstrate honesty in speech. There is no compulsion here to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"in every situation we come across.
We quickly answered the question about new year celebrations by noting that superstitious beliefs must always need correction, but a SG leader should have the sensitivity to exclude a grieving individual from pressure to participate in a celebration. On the other hand, someone who has no issues joining a celebration (e.g a wedding or New Year visitation) should also be sensitive to the superstitious beliefs of others.
In this context, Eugene raised Romans 14 and 15 as a general guide for us in controversial matters. I thought that it is interesting that Paul distinguishes in this passage between the "strong" and the "weak" in faith. It is not that both are equally correct viewpoints. One is in a sense superior to the other, and yet the strong must not despise the weak, nor the weak judge the strong. The other thing he says is that "each one should be fully convinced in his own mind", which means that theological clarity is a virtue. We are asked to hold firm convictions based on our understanding of Scripture. As a case in point I asked how many of us felt that remarriage was permissible after divorce :)
Eugene defined white lies well as lies intended to minimize adverse consequences. They are, I think, also lies where it is hard to verify the truth. They are generally thought to be harmless when believed. Amelia noted that Scripture sometimes commend white lies. There is the case of Rahab (Joshua 2:1ff) who lied and was commended for it (Heb 11:31). Even Jesus' oblique comment in John 7:8, though capable of being interpreted figuratively or as a "I am not yet going", could have been easily misconstrued. The Bible approves of battle tactics that deceive one's enemies. Many of us readily admitted that we told white lies for various reasons: to give hope, to protect others, to conceal damaging knowledge and so forth.
My basic principle would be: white lies are always wrong when we try to minimize adverse consequences to ourselves. They may be sometimes the lesser evil of the bad choices we are faced with in life because we are trying to minimize adverse consequences to others. In the latter case, depending on the severity of the adverse consequence that might occur, lying in some way may be permissible. And when we are forced to do this we should certainly not lie in a cavalier, gleeful fashion, but with a spirit of brokenness and regret.
Jesus's injunction to simply answer with "Yes or No" (Nt 5:37) is a call to demonstrate honesty in speech. There is no compulsion here to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"in every situation we come across.
We quickly answered the question about new year celebrations by noting that superstitious beliefs must always need correction, but a SG leader should have the sensitivity to exclude a grieving individual from pressure to participate in a celebration. On the other hand, someone who has no issues joining a celebration (e.g a wedding or New Year visitation) should also be sensitive to the superstitious beliefs of others.
In this context, Eugene raised Romans 14 and 15 as a general guide for us in controversial matters. I thought that it is interesting that Paul distinguishes in this passage between the "strong" and the "weak" in faith. It is not that both are equally correct viewpoints. One is in a sense superior to the other, and yet the strong must not despise the weak, nor the weak judge the strong. The other thing he says is that "each one should be fully convinced in his own mind", which means that theological clarity is a virtue. We are asked to hold firm convictions based on our understanding of Scripture. As a case in point I asked how many of us felt that remarriage was permissible after divorce :)
Comments
Post a Comment