PinocchioWhat’s the difference between “ethics” and “morals” and what does the distinction have to do with the modern-day church of Jesus Christ?  Both have to do with “right” conduct — how should we live, think, act, and behave in community?  Interestingly, moralizing is often viewed as a negative, while being ethical is almost universally viewed as being positive.  Both come from a root meaning of judging “customs,” the right way people should act in civilized society.  So, how should we live together as Christians?  This was the main question explored at a seminar I taught at Vanderbilt University almost twelve years ago, but it is a question that I especially believe is critically relevant to leadership in The United Methodist Church as we live more deeply into the 21st century and a planet-wide community.  It came to mind recently when I was having a discussion with a table of pastors, and the question was raised, “When is it necessary for pastors to lie to people?”  I immediately commented that it is never “necessary” to lie to people, and the entire table with one voice disagreed with me.

You can’t tell people in the church the truth.  They can’t handle it.  We are there to protect them.

Yeah, the church I serve has some really dark skeletons in its closet.  There is nothing good that would come of letting people know what really happened.

And you know for a fact that we can’t tell people in our churches a lot of what we learn at seminary.  They don’t want to hear it, so we tell the same old stories the same old ways to keep everyone happy.

Mostly it isn’t lying; it’s just not telling the truth.

I find such comments troubling, yet the other pastors at the table (mostly male, mostly 45 or older) defended the need to lie as a function of their leadership.  Many felt they had to protect people from the truth.  Others believe that it is impossible to maintain confidentiality without lying.  Still others say they are ” forced to lie” due to circumstances beyond their control.  A few say it is simply easier to lie than deal with the fallout over controversial issues.

So, what do these pastors think we should lie about?  (The rationale for each of the following are the arguments pastors made in favor of lying.)

Misconduct — if a clergy or laity leader engages in misconduct (sexual, fiscal, legal, etc.) it should be kept secret.  Only those directly involved should be aware of what goes on.  People might leave the church if they knew their leaders weren’t trustworthy.  (Obviously, lying is an important characteristic of trustworthiness…)  People who come to church shouldn’t be burdened with the church’s problems.  We need to protect people from unpleasantness.  Misconduct makes us look like hypocrites, and people don’t need any more ammunition to discredit the church.  What happens here should stay here — just like Vegas.

Decision-making — the church isn’t a democracy, but it never hurts to let people think that their opinions matter.  There is nothing wrong with asking people for input, even though a decision has been made.  It makes people feel better.   Pastors should give only enough information for people to make the “right” decision.  If a decision could go the wrong way, it never hurts to “pad the truth” a little to make sure it goes the right way.  The ends justify the means.  It is even okay to “make things up,” if it helps the church “do the right thing.”

Money— more money equals more ministry, therefore pastors need to do what it takes to get the money the church needs.  Church leaders need to be as slick and professional as they can be in soliciting funds.  It is important to “frame” appeals in the best light possible.  And the members of the church do not need to know how the money is spent, especially if they wouldn’t “understand” why the money was spent as it was, or might disagree.  Sometimes on large projects, costs need to be “underprojected” so that people won’t be scared away.  People who don’t work with large sums of money don’t understand high finance, so it is just as well if they are kept in the dark.

Theology— people love their Sunday school stories, and we don’t want to disrupt the status quo.  There is absolutely no advantage to sharing the brightest and best scholarship when it comes to the creation story, the nativity, or the resurrection.  What most pastors “know,” most laity aren’t interested in — in fact, they actively DON’T want to know.  Serious Bible study threatens beloved stories, so we should perpetuate the myths, even when we know there are other interpretations.  It is much better to keep people happy and not upset them.

General — tell people what they want to hear.  Say whatever you must to avoid conflict.  Don’t give people anything they can use as a weapon against you.  If asked a direct question, it is better to “fabricate an answer” (lie) than  to stir things up.  Confidentiality makes lying imperative, because saying something is confidential is the same as admitting the worst.  There are times when lying is the only sure way to get people off your back.  Sometimes lying is the only way to get people to do what you want them to.  Staying upbeat and positive requires us to lie from time to time.  There is no way to tell the truth all the time that won’t end up hurting people, so we have a duty to tell the truth only when it serves the greater good (and by implication, lie whenever it serves the greater good…)

These are just some of the topics we discussed and the reasons given to defend pastoral lying.  Yet, to me the whole discussion is a bit surreal.  What happened to let your “yes” be “yes,” and your “no” be “no?”  What happened to speaking the truth in love?  What happened to just about everything Jesus and Paul ever said?  When did lying become a spiritual gift?  Like Jesus before Pilate, the question is raised once more, “What is truth?”  Certainly there are times for discretion.  Truly, there are sensitive issues.  Indeed, we need confidentiality.  But none of these demands that we lie.

What does it say about the nature of Christian community when trust, honesty, transparency, and integrity are not considered reasonably possible?  What does it say about our call and vocation when pastoral leaders count deception and disingenuousness among their skill-set?  What does it say about a system that honors dishonesty as a normal function?  What does it say about the influence of our culture when leaders decide what people can handle and what they can’t, and when truth becomes malleable and elastic to serve the needs of those in power?  What does it say about our future when we can no longer believe in our leaders?

We love to moralize in the church — pointing fingers at other people’s behaviors.  I am appalled at this idea of widespread lying by pastoral leaders (I feel it is unethical), but want to be careful about casting the first stone.  I am not attacking lying liars who lie (thanks Al Franken) but am concerned about a situation the whole church finds itself in.  I cannot believe that lying can be long tolerated in a healthy, sustainable church structure.  (However, I know people who will say the entire history of the Christian church is founded on lies, deceptions, and misinformation…)

As I tried to raise these questions, those around the table smirked and taunted my naivete.  They thought I was being a little prudish and quaint.  I was the one who was being foolish and gullible.  They patiently explained to me again and again how complex these issues are, and that we don’t live in a perfect world.  They lamented the need for dishonesty, but declared its necessity nonetheless.  They made a strong case for the application of misinformation, fabrication, and deception, and made it sound like there was no other choice.  It made me sad to think we have come to a place in our church where honesty is simply one option among many.  But maybe it’s not so bad; maybe they were just lying to me.

This topic continues in two more posts: Daniel in the Liar’s Den and 1,001 Ways to Break Trust (and One to Fix It)

Morals: right and wrong behaviors defined by the cultural mores and customs of the dominant society.

Ethics: the application of morals to strengthen and structure society for the common good.

37 responses to “Caught on the Ethical Horns of A Moral Dilemma”

  1. Brad S Avatar

    There is no room for dishonesty and no case for lying in the church. I can see the temptation and the feeling that one is protecting parishioners by lying or witholding the truth. In that sense it would almost seem magnanimous. However, when the truth finally comes out and people learn that they have been decieved even for the most noble of reasons they will feel a betrayal and a pain deeper than anything you might have protected them from in the first place

  2. deborah Avatar
    deborah

    Dan,
    I am saddened to hear that this conversation happened at the School for Congregational Development. I felt that it was a great conference and overall very uplifting and hopeful. grrrr….

    I have to wonder how this type of belief system, that essentially begins with an assumption that lying is ok and even necesssary, meshes with new church starts – it seems to taint altogether the reason for new church planting (making disciples for the transformation of the world) and indeed calls into question the selection of people of vision to lead churches into new growth and development.

    Are we really so jaded to think that the church can have any relevance in this day and age with a foundation built on lying? The only thing that we have going for us is our integrity…the integrity of the message of the Good News of Jesus Christ. Otherwise we are just like any other fine and worthy non-profit organization operating in our culture.

  3. Josh Hale Avatar

    I watched this summer as Adam Hamilton shared with Resurrection about a case of clergy misconduct on his staff, and then had to send another painful email to the church defending why he had shared that info to begin with. An excellent antidote to the “cover-up” & obsfuscate mentality that usually accompanies (& exacerbates) such brokenness. Lying is wrong, no matter how we attempt to justify it to ourselves or others.

  4. Jay Avatar

    Stephana, let me clarify that I am not justifying the choice that some of my colleagues to be less than transparent about their ministry and less than honest about their beliefs in the gospel of Jesus Christ. What I AM recognizing is that a higher value is placed on openness, authenticity, and transparency these days than was true for earlier eras. There was indeed a generation of clergy raised in seminaries which taught them that leadership required that one didn’t reveal too much, for to do so was seen as less than professional. Likewise, if one was raised in the Southern U.S. (as I was) one would experience the phenomena of “toxic Christian niceness,” where the norm was to be syrupy sweet on the surface, while tearing someone down behind their back. Do I agree with this or think it has anything to do with the Kingdom life of Jesus? No way! BUT, while I try to model a different way of being Christian and a different way of being pastor, I also recognize that there are many for whom the cultural forces leading them to be less than honest are strong. The challenge for us is to not be agents of condemnation, but rather agents of transformation, helping those whose cultural baggage suggests that openness and authenticity is to be avoided begin to think about life and ministry in a new way.

    1. Stephana Avatar
      Stephana

      Thanks for the clarification, Jay. And, to pick up on your point about the confusion between being nice and being Christian — that’s not confined to the South or to one generation either. That syrupy sweetness you describe keeps us from addressing small misunderstandings, allowing them to grow like a sickly sweet cancer into problems, conflicts, and conflagrations that can tear communities apart. Telling the truth in love is often hard and painful, but that’s what our faith prepares us for.

  5. Stephana Avatar
    Stephana

    I am nearly as appalled at the notion that the age of the pastors has anything to do with their tendency to lie or their acceptance of it as I am at the pastors who believe lying is ever the best or even a good idea! There have been and will be liars in every movement, in every “conversation,” in every age of the church’s long history. No group or approach has a monopoly on ethics. Our work as the body of Christ is to live in such an honest and transparent way that lying to “protect,” or for any other reason is simply unacceptable! I don’t care how old we are…

  6. Jay Avatar

    Dan, what was the context of this conversation? As you noted it seems like most of the pastors involved were over the age of 45, and I would date say that they have been acculturated to believe that transparency and authenticity are to be avoided. A central part of the what those of us in the emergent conversation have been trying to address is the belief that transparency is the new currency of the postmodern world, and that the old voices that don’t fully trust the congregation to handle what we throw at them are finding themselves pushed to the margins.

    1. doroteos2 Avatar
      doroteos2

      Hey, Jay, the context was the School of Congregational Development, the table comprised of people wanting to launch new churches, and (ironically) the reason I identified the table as all over 45 is because every time I share this conversation with people one of the first conclusions they jump to is “oh, so this was a group of younger clergy.” The implicit assumptions are that young leaders are inexperienced, untested, and therefore more prone to stretch the truth and try to keep everyone happy. What has been the most troubling thing to me since this initial conversation is that over two-thirds of the people I have spoken with — male and female, under 45 and over — look at me and say, “I really don’t see what the problem is. You CAN’T be completely honest in the church, so I don’t know what you’re upset about.” The fact that this is simply accepted as “normal” troubles me, and to date younger pastors are no less accepting of it than the old guard. We expect to be deceived by our political leaders, our business leaders, and apparently we expect nothing less from our church leaders.

      1. Jay Avatar

        Sigh…

        Isn’t this ultimately a sign that we really don’t trust one another?

        Sigh…

      2. doroteos2 Avatar
        doroteos2

        And trust is such a fragile commodity. There are pastors deeply committed to honesty and openness at almost any cost. The few people who feel as I do feel STRONGLY as I do. Being selectively honesty is like being selectively pregnant or selectively alive. We travel down a slippery slope the minute we start asking ourselves, “When is it a good idea to lie?” And we don’t ask that. We know it isn’t okay to lie — which is why we say fabricate, fib, deflect, obscure, prevaricate, ad nauseum so we don’t have to face up to the fact that we can’t tell the truth any more. Sigh… indeed.

  7. Cindy Thompson Avatar
    Cindy Thompson

    I first heard the case for lying to a congregation in seminary. A classmate was amazed by what were to him new ideas in Biblical scholarship. He said they really made the Bible come alive to him in a new way, but he could never share such ideas with his congregation, because it would destroy their faith. I was and am still amazed by the arrogance that assumes we clergy can but our congregations can’t handle the truth.

    I have been uplifted watching a large congregation in our denomination carefully but publicly and compassionately handle a misconduct issue with two of the clergy on their staff. I believe it could be a model and test case against the more common secrecy model.

Leave a comment