Interesting OP, dyan.
Something I've mentioned in passing in several threads, but never really explored in detail, is some statements Paul makes in his letters to lying and using deception to gain converts. I'll post these here:
2 Corinthians 12:16 said:
But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.
I just read all of chapter 12. What a strange chapter! Paul is by turns boastful (in his efforts to say that he is not being boastful) and insecure.
As for the particular verse in question, I think it really would depend on what Paul did, the manner of his lie. I mean, was it simply the manner of a car salesman, who gets his foot in the door by showing the cheapest car first and working up to the more expensive models? Was it simple white lies? Is he referring to a socratic sort of discourse in which he trapped them with their own assumptions and beliefs?
I don't think that all lying is created equal, or necessarily bad (or that all craftiness equates to lying).
1 Corinthians 9:19-22 said:
For though I be free from all [men], yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all [men], that I might by all means save some.
I actually don't see this as a negative either, but gives credence to the (professed) universitality of the Gospel. If the Gospel is meant for all people, and a real God would know that various cultures are raised into different beliefs, then the real Gospel would adapt to various cultures.
And besides, when I eat dinner at a friend's house, and they say grace, I bow my head and sit quietly. Out of respect, I observe their customs. Do you think that this is an unacceptable form of lying, to conform to other's rituals in order to maintain friendship?
Romans 3:7 said:
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
Read this one in context. Paul is using this in a theoretical sense, to illustrate some point; he's not talking about a specific lie of his own. Apparently there must have been debate over why we should be judged, when our sin only serves to illuminate God's perfection (aren't we doing God a favor, then?). Paul is arguing against this viewpoint.
Also, look at the three narratives of his conversion experience in Acts 9:3-7, Acts 22:6-10, and Acts 26:12-20. There are contradictions in these three narratives.
I think that's to be expected. I mean, there's contradictions in the Gospels as well. That's just the nature of the beast.
So, how can we trust one who admits to using deceit, and not only that, but even those who followed his words and teachings admitted he did so? Can we really trust the letters of Paul to support any kind of spirituality if this is the case?
I don't think anyone is perfect. Just because someone makes some mistakes doesn't mean that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Note that I am not a Christian, but I'm just thinking about this in general terms.
I mean, do you believe that the Buddha never ever told a lie? Or what about the Dalai Llama? Or even just regular pastors/priests/imams/monks etc. They all have much to offer, but I highly doubt that any of them are blameless.
And not only that, but later church fathers followed his lead, in finding great use for deception and lying, as long as they gained things for their god:
Clement of Alexandria said:
"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
So, in Clements opinion, even if something
is true, if it contradicts their faith, it's not to be regarded as true.
I think that's less lying than choosing what you think is true. If you think that God made the sky red and he told us this in his infallible book, then you would assume that your eyes are tricking you when they tell you it is blue. When you insist that the sky is red, you are not lying or intentionally deceiving people; you are just trying to present the truth that you believe is true.
John Chrysostom said:
"Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...
For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...
And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
Even the great reformer Martin Luther said:
Martin Luther said:
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
I find this sort of sentiment more worrisome. It is part and parcel of the church's desire to suppress knowledge, that it deems dangerous for the masses.
Is this the faith that was inspired by Paul? One of deceit and lies, in order to gain for their god? The Bible, in other places, and even in Paul's letters, warns against lying, using deceitful speech, and misleading others. What are we to make of all of this? Is this the kind of example we want to follow for spirituality? How about today's Christian leaders, are we to trust them? I'll let another quote from St. Jerome illustrate this point:
Jerome said:
‘There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation.’
I agree with Jerome. But I also wouldn't impugn all pastors and preists with intentionally lying. Has the Church likely lied before? I don't doubt it. Have individual priests and pastors lied? I don't doubt it. Do all of them lie? I doubt it.
The Bible says that "satan is the father of lies". Jesus even mentioned that it might be possible for the antichrist to deceive the apostles, just as they had been done by Paul. Is it possible that Paul was the one Jesus had in mind when he said that satan is the father of lies? What does this mean for Christianity, which is mostly built on the teachings of Paul, who (and this is for another thread), contradicted Jesus on many matters?
Anything's possible. Especially when there's no way of knowing for sure.
