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. larry Avatar
    larry

    “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.”

    I will not be going to seminary, but I am interested in learning, especially if what is learned at seminary cannot be told. Is there a recommended book or books to learn more about this theme? Paz a todos,larry

    1. doroteos2 Avatar
      doroteos2

      Hi, Larry, I think there are some very good books out there that “lift the veil” and present some sound, balanced biblical teaching. Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan do this. N. T. Wright does it. Luke Timothy Johnson does it. Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels do it. Walter Brueggemann is great for Hebrew scriptures. Borg and Ehrman can be a little sensational at times, but I have always found Crossan to be solid.

      1. John Meunier Avatar
        John Meunier

        Of course, Dan’s authors disagree with each other in some important ways, so don’t pick up just one.

        Luke Timothy Johnson – for instance – is a strong critic of Borg. NT Wright and Borg wrote at least one book together that is a sustained argument about some of the fundamentals of the biblical accounts.

        Bart Ehrman has been dismissed by scholarly readers as sharing things that every first-year seminary student learns. That alone might make him a good introduction.

        I find Walter Brueggemann’s “The Bible Makes Sense” and the introduction and epilogue to his shorter book on the Old Testament very helpful.

  2. SRB Avatar
    SRB

    I am currently in the candidacy process for the UMC. (The long…drawn out…hey, did they remember even meeting with me?- process).

    Of the many fears I have about this calling, one of the most chilling is that I will forget what it means to share Good News. That I will become a snooty, historical/critical, know-it all who looks down on other people because they’re not an “insider” like me. Shaking my head in pity at their “child-like faith.” (Conveniently forgetting that child-like faith is the very faith our Lord was seeking.) That I will become so wrapped up in meetings and growth measurements and workshops, that I’ll forget all about what has brought me to this point, or worse, find it a neccessary annoyance. In short, that I will not be Christ-like.

    If this is indeed what is to become of my “ministry,” I pray someone will stop me now before I do any harm.

  3. jenni Avatar
    jenni

    As a congregation member this whole attitude seems incredibly patronizing. Don’t tell me about misconduct because I’m unable to distinguish between the perpetrator and God/church/other clergy. Exclude me from decision-making because there’s no way I could have anything to offer the discussion, and no way that God would speak through me. Lie to me to get money because that’s all I’m there for anyway, to pay the clergy to do the work. Lie to me about theology because I’m not called to paid ministry then I obviously have no idea about anything and my faith is so fragile that the pastor could actually destroy it, never mind the Holy Spirit and a life-long relationship with Christ. Avoid conflict at all costs because we can’t possibly work through that to find truth and draw together as a community by learning to really love each other, when it’s actually hard.

    I seek to grow in Christ, to mature in my faith as do many others. This attitude to truth seems to aim to keep us as children, or possibly it just assumes that we can’t grow up. Is that really the role pastors are called to play?

    1. doroteos2 Avatar
      doroteos2

      Preach it, Jenni. You are calling to account a whole system of leadership that devalues the very laity it claims to want to empower. There is no way clergy (myself included) can claim to be “congregational leaders” and then fail to speak the truth. It is the height of disrespect and even contempt. Thank you for your challenge and your perspectives.

  4. John M. Carpenter Avatar
    John M. Carpenter

    Such really does bother me … the lack of truth in some of the leadership of the church. Break confidence? Of course not. What is wrong with simply saying, “I morally cannot answer that question”, or, to be direct, “That is honestly none of your business”. After all, God sees not only my actions and hears not only my words, but God also knows my deepest inner thoughts, emotions, intentions, and my lived-up-to purpose (even when it does not agree with my written purpose). Did Jesus not always tell the truth? And were there not times when he did not answer the question (i.e., John 3 & 4)? Yes, Jesus told the truth and we are called to imitate him.

    1. doroteos2 Avatar
      doroteos2

      Amen and amen. There are ways to tell the truth without spilling everything we know, and you say so eloquently. Thanks.

  5. Questing Parson Avatar

    This is amazing and disturbing. The categories listed where lying is needed can all be handled without doing so. I weep.

  6. Bob D. Avatar
    Bob D.

    This is one of those frustrating posts you are so good at. You have framed this issue in such a way that anyone who disagrees with you sounds like they condone bad behavior. I don’t think it is fair to lump all of these things together as lying and dishonesty. The fact is, not everyone needs to know everything in the church. There are many things that most church members should not know. Pastors must make hard decisions about what to make public and what to keep private. This is their job. And as far as theological interpretation, pastors need to help nuture people in their beliefs, but there is no reason to anger and offend them. And besides, most of the controversies in scripture aren’t over facts but opinions. This is why we call it faith. So lighten up a little. Telling the truth is not a black and white issue. In real life, even in the church, there are lots of gray areas.

    1. Alan Rambel Avatar
      Alan Rambel

      Certainly there are vast gray areas here, but they have to do with degrees of disclosure not dishonesty. There’s no doubt people in leadership positions must be sensitive and creative in tailoring their pronouncements to both those present and to the ripple effects of what is said or not. Indeed the ability to appropriately address your audience can be extremely challenging.
      Lying, on the other hand, is a black and white issue. And it has nothing to do with the threat of subsequent discovery of the lie, though those consequences can be dire as well.

  7. Harriett Avatar

    perhaps the clergy don’t really believe the current academic movement? Are these facts that must be shared, or theories that are part of a dialectical process of refinement?

    the other question that might be relevant is whether there is room for any confidentiality in the church. Are all personnel matters the “property” of the congregation, no matter who is harmed?

    1. doroteos2 Avatar
      doroteos2

      I really can’t answer the first part, though I believe the subjects run the full gamut. As to the second part, I addressed in my post that there are confidential issues. But there is a huge difference between saying “we’re dealing with a sensitive issue and I am not at liberty to talk about it” and lying about it. The point of my post is that there are options other than deception, deceit, and falsehood. Truth is challenging, but not impossible. It is so troubling to me that we need to debate what it means to “tell the truth.”

Leave a comment