AUTHOR:  Bob & Gretchen Passantino
SOURCE:  Cornerstone magazine, vol. 21, issue 98, pp. 5,22
  DATE:  1992
 TITLE:  Public Trust: Should Christians Tell the Truth?
 NOTES:  Copyright 1992 by Bob & Gretchen Passantino.

                          PUBLIC TRUST:

                   Should Christians Tell the Truth?
                     by Bob & Gretchen Passantino

   Of course Christians should tell the truth! And yet, Christians today seem
to forget about the importance of telling the truth when it comes to being
truthful about a Christian leader's secret moral failures. Why is it right to
tell the truth about a corrupt politician's extramarital affairs, but wrong
to reveal the truth about a Christian evangelist's sexual immorality? Why do
Christians applaud truth telling about fraudulent medical research, but scorn
the Christian who exposes the false testimony of a Christian celebrity? Do we
Christians ®really¯ care about truth? If we do, why do we abandon unpleasant
truths about sin in the Church and immorality in Christian leadership?

   Two issues are fundamental to understanding the biblical basis for telling
the truth about Christian sin: (1) the nature and importance of truth and the
moral responsibility that comes from knowing truth, and (2) biblical
principles for integrity and honesty in Christian leadership.
                         The Nature of Truth

   Conservative, biblical Christians have always understood God's standards
of truth to be absolute and uncompromising. The Bible describes Jesus as the
"faithful and true witness" (Rev. 3:14), and He calls Himself "the truth"
(John 14:6). Jesus, the divine person who became man, cannot lie or deceive.
His standard of truth telling is perfect. But what does this mean for us, His
followersÄÄChristians who are ®not¯ omniscient? ShouldÄÄand canÄÄChristians
tell the truth?

   Fortunately, we do not have to grope in the dark concerning Christian
behavior and truth. The Bible has given us clear outlines of our moral and
intellectual responsibilities for truth telling. God's revealed will in His
Word recognizes and supplements man's limitations regarding knowledge and
moral duty. We can look to God's Word to discern our truth-telling
responsibilities.

   A Christian's commitment to truth derives from honesty as a part of God's
nature. (By this, we are not saying that believers automatically think,
speak, and act with the full integrity of God.) The psalmist declares that
God's truthfulness and right judgment come from His righteousness (Ps.
119:142, 160). Isaiah 65:16 says we serve the God of truth, the "Amen," or
the one who determines what will be. As Jesus calls Himself the truth in John
14:6, the Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of truth" in verse seventeen of
the same chapter.

   Our response to the embodiment of truth in God is to worship Him "in
spirit and in truth" (John 4:23, 24). This is made possible by the power of
the Holy Spirit, who with the Father and the Son "sanctifies" us in the truth
(John 17:17, 19) and establishes us in the truth (2 Peter 1:12). The
Scriptures are called "the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15), and the Christian
faith is compared to "walking in the truth" (3 John 3, 4). The truth makes us
free (John 8:31, 32).

   Telling the truth is not merely an intellectual exercise, nor even simply
a moral imperative. Truth telling should flow naturally from our moral
character, redeemed by Christ's death on the cross and nurtured by the
indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 4:25 commands believers to
"put away lying." Romans 2:8 contrasts the unredeemed as those who reject
truth and the redeemed as those who "obey the truth," a concept stated
positively in 1 Peter 1:22. Paul couples truth with love in Ephesians 4:15,
a passage which should assure us that we do not abandon Christian love by
telling the truth. Psalm 15:2 equates walking "upright" with both
righteousness and speaking the truth in one's own heart.

   The world has challenged the truthfulness of Christianity for almost two
thousand years, and Christianity has always passed the test. Christianity is
a faith based on fact, a faith that claims to accurately represent history
and reality.

   Jesus challenged the skeptics of His day to test His words or testimony by
investigating His works: "If I do not do the works of my Father, do not
believe me; but if I do, though you do not believe me, believe the works,
that you may know . . . " (John 10:37, 38). Luke was a discerning researcher
and investigator who "had perfect [accurate] understanding of all things from
the very first" (Luke 1:1-4). Paul pointed to eyewitness testimony to support
his "story" of Jesus' Resurrection when he listed the eyewitnesses to the
Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:5-8). Peter asserted the testability of the facts of
Christianity when he declared, "We did not follow cunningly devised fables
when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but
were eyewitnesses of His majesty" (2 Peter 1:16).

   Journalists, archaeologists, historians, philosophers, and attorneys have
investigated the claims of Christianity for two thousand years in efforts to
destroy its credibility. Instead, responsible investigation repeatedly
affirms the truthfulness of Christianity.

   In the Christian's life, truthfulness and integrity go hand in hand.
Truthfulness is a necessary part of calling a sinner to repentance and also
of restoring fallen Christians to faithfulness. When a Christian fails to
respond to an opportunity to tell a nonbeliever the truth about the
consequences of unbelief, he is held responsible by God (Ezek. 33:1-9). If a
Christian fails to confront a fellow believer who is in sin, God calls him a
participant in sin (1 Cor. 5, 1 Tim. 5:20-22).

   Jesus held people accountable for what they knew, saying, "If I had not
come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse
for their sin. He who hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among
them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they
have seen and also hated both me and my Father. But this happened that the
word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, `They hated me without
a cause' " (John 15:22-25, NKJV; cf. 9:41).

   The biblical references above show us that Christians' lives should be
characterized by truth. The Bible also gives us principles governing
difficult truth-telling situations. For example, a general biblical ethic of
truth telling allows for remaining silent when to speak would endanger human
life (Exod. 1:15-22). In a hierarchical sense, some Christian ethicists
interpret Rahab's lie concerning the Israelite spies (Josh. 2:1-24) as
subordinate to her obligation to protect innocent human life.

   Most Christians see no ethical dilemma in leaving lights and a television
on at night in an empty house to "deceive" a would-be burglar into thinking
the house is occupied. Yet even with these ethical complexities, Christians
should be committed to integrity and truth telling. Graduated absolutism does
not justify relativism, false testimonies, immorality, or irresponsibility
concerning truth.

   We become rightly outraged that women with crisis pregnancies are not told
the truth about fetal development by abortion providers. We are justified in
resenting the secular media for using emotive, biased vocabulary to obscure
the truth of biblical ethical standards. We approve of investigations that
uncover political corruption in Washington, insider trading on Wall Street,
and consumer fraud in the corporate world.

   One would think that our outspoken faithfulness to truth telling would
extend to telling the truth about sin within the Church. And yet at this
point many Christians shrink from truth telling, instead hiding behind empty
platitudes such as "Don't judge," "Forgive and forget," "Don't shoot your own
wounded," "Look at all the people who came to the Lord through this
ministry," etc. Sadly, we have unbiblically acted as though telling the truth
about a sinning Christian leader contradicts biblical concern for that
leader.

   Christians who cry out, "It's wrong to judge," are ignoring the context of
the passage (Matt. 7:1-2), which does not forbid judging but instead insists
on judgment according to God's word. In addition, a judgmental criticism of
judgment is self-refuting: "I'm judging you for judging me." If it is wrong
for a Christian journalist to publicly criticize a Christian leader whose
testimony is false or who is immoral, then isn't the critic also wrong for
publicly criticizing the Christian journalist? A political candidate who
falsely accuses his opponent of lying and who is himself found to be a liar
loses all credibility. Paul points out this contradiction among some Jews,
saying, "You who say, `Do not commit adultery,' do you commit adultery? You
who abhor idols, do you rob temples?" (Rom. 2:22).

   A critic who criticizes someone for criticism is condemned by his own
conviction. One who speaks English, uttering the sentence "I can't utter a
word in English," has refuted himself. Aren't those who accuse Christian
investigative journalists of being the "Christian Gestapo" themselves acting
Gestapo-ish?

   To equate forgiveness with absolution from personal responsibility is to
cheapen biblical forgiveness and to deny biblical justice.

   Assuming that integrity and accountability exclude compassion unfairly
brands truth telling as "shooting" and ignores that "the wounded" have been
wounded by their own sin.

   Christians who try to excuse false testimonies and immorality by pointing
to the "fruits" of a ministry deny Paul's forceful argument in Romans 3:8
that to do evil that good may come is slanderous and contrary to biblical
ethics.

                       Biblical Accountability

   The Bible clearly states that Christian leaders should be accountable both
to the Word of God and also to God's people, whom the leader serves. Among
the requirements Paul describes for a Christian leader are that he be
"blameless," and "of good behavior" (1 Tim. 3:2). A Christian leader must
"have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into
reproach and the snare of the devil" (1 Tim. 3:7). This does not mean that
the Christian leader is simply good at covering up his sin. Christian leaders
must display integrity and honestyÄÄthey must prove themselves worthy of
trust.

   The objections we have cited against revealing a Christian leader's sin
seem to imply that it is possible for one to have a valid Christian ministry
or profession and yet have a private life of corruption. However, the Bible
explains that one's sinful conduct will have a negative effect on one's
profession of godliness. Titus 1:6-8 summarizes the same qualifications for
a Christian leader that Paul gave in 1 Timothy 3, but goes on to condemn one
who says he believes and yet whose works deny his profession of faith:

   To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled
   and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and
   conscience are defiled. They profess to know God, but in works
   they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified
   for every good work (Titus 1:15-16).

   To attempt to combine immorality with godliness to produce spiritual fruit
is completely contrary to scriptural teaching. In fact, Paul ranks it with
"profane and vain babblings" and warns Timothy to avoid "contradictions of
what is falsely called knowledge" (1 Tim. 6:20).

   In addition, Jesus openly rebuked Peter when Peter argued against Jesus
going to the cross (Matt. 16:22, 23). Paul writes Titus that it is the
responsibility of the church to hold the leader accountable for his sin:
"Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith" (Titus
1:13). Paul also commands Christians to rebuke sinning leaders publicly: "
Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may
fear" (1 Tim. 5:20). Paul took his own advice, as recorded in Galatians 2,
and publicly rebuked Peter "before them all" (verse 14).

   If we neglect to confront sin within the Church, we rob the Church of the
integrity it should expect from its members. The Church becomes weak through
compromise, and the leader becomes weak because of his continuing hypocrisy.
Fallen leaders betray the trust of those they lead. Maturity in the Lord,
which is an essential part of qualifying one for spiritual leadership, can be
confirmed only by an established pattern of resisting sin and walking
faithfully with God, family, and others.

   First Thessalonians 5:21-22 commands us to "test all things," and Paul
commended the Bereans for "searching the Scriptures" to test what he himself
had taught them (Acts 17:11). The Christian whose life is characterized by
truth telling must support spiritual leaders whose lives exemplify Christian
maturity, and must hold those leaders accountable.

   If a Christian leader's life is bound by immorality, the Christian has the
obligation then to expose that sin publicly, since the leader is public and
his actions impact the church he leads. Such a confrontation is not license
for slander or rumormongering; obviously, any public expose of a Christian
leader must be done in the spirit of the Golden Rule, confirmed through valid
evidence, and conducted in a manner to bring honor to Christ and the Church.

   Fallen leaders damage the trust relationship established between them and
their followers, a relationship mirroring the trusting relationship we are to
have with the Lord. In addition, they break the trust relationship Peter
tells us to maintain before the world; that is, we are to live so that even
the world will note our trustworthiness and be unable to speak against us,
but will, instead, glorify God (1 Peter 2:12).

   It is unethical for Christians to cover up for leaders who have achieved
their position through false qualifications or stories, or who are living
immorally. Can the Church claim a higher ethical standard than the world when
we adopt a "code of silence" worthy of the most pernicious organized crime
conspiracyÄÄor even some suspected invisible satanic ring?

   Some people in society have a greater responsibility for honesty and
integrity than others. This does not mean that it's less wrong for one person
to lie than another, but a public leader has a greater responsibility because
the ®consequences¯ of his failure have greater ramifications. A layperson who
has a mistaken medical opinion will not affect the lives and health of as
many people as a doctor with a misunderstanding of medicine.

   An individual in a position of public trust surrenders his privacy
regarding his suitability and trustworthiness. He has taken a position in
which the public is expected to trust him for specific reasons or
qualifications. Those reasons and qualifications are open to public scrutiny.
He may not exempt himself from scrutiny by claiming he need only speak the
truth when he's on the platform, but otherwise his life and actions ought to
be nobody's business. If the leader is trustworthy, they will withstand
examination. If he is not, close examination will reveal their inadequacies.
Christians who are committed to truth must preserve this fundamental right
and obligation to know in whom they are asked to trust.

   The examples of Jesus and His disciples' commitment to truthfulness and
integrity give us our model for investigative Christian journalism and for
holding our Christian leaders accountable. If we do not expose false
testimonies and revisionist histories, especially when they are propagated by
Christians, then all truth claims and all historical knowledge come into
doubt. We can have no certainty of the truth of Christianity or the objective
reality of the Resurrection.

   In the first century, the apostle Paul could claim that the Resurrection
"was not done in a corner" (Acts 26:26). Should Christians be so careless
with the truth that we need to hide our corrupt leaders "in a corner" to
preserve the faith rather than speak the truth and call those corrupt leaders
to repentance and reconciliation? God forbid!