Truth Matters
"Death of Ananias," Matthias Scheits, inked woodcut pressed to paper circa 1672, from annotated Bible, trans. Martin Luther, public domain. Digital image provided courtesy of Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta. Click on image to link to source.
1 Kings 21:1-22, Acts of the Apostles 5:1-11.
“How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!” –Acts 5:4b
Today’s scripture readings tell us something about the character of God. The essence is this: The God of Israel, the God embodied in the community of Jesus’ disciples, stands on the side of truth against those who weave false narratives.
We live in a time when false narratives are common in political discourse. Diana Butler Bass has written, “…the most cynical among us know that politicians stretch the truth, shade stories to make themselves look good, fudge details about policies, and shift narratives to their own advantage. For better or worse, this is part of the political process in democratic countries. But there are exaggerations, talking points, bad memories, and narrative embellishments — and then there are malicious, outright lies and public deceptions.” [1]
If a New York Times / Sienna College Poll can be believed, some segments of our population are entertained by false narratives, and believe that those offended are taking them too seriously. [2] To them, false narratives are political hyperbole, exaggeration for effect, not to be taken literally. Perhaps they would compare them to the realm of professional wrestling, where showmanship is just as important as athleticism. But when party officials tell tall tales denying election results, such false narratives can have awful real-world consequences for election workers. When politicians tell tall tales about the government geo-engineering weather causing hurricanes, they can have awful real-world consequences for those working to provide storm assessment and relief.
The texts I’ve chosen for today never appear together in the Revised Common Lectionary schedule of readings, but I’ve paired them because of some remarkable similarities. In each text, we are introduced to a married couple and a piece of property that figures prominently in their attempt to gain an advantage over others. Ahab and Jezebel construct a narrative about Naboth to falsely accuse him of blasphemy and sedition. Their conspiracy leads to his murder and their takeover of his land. Ananias and Sapphira construct a false narrative about their sacrificial gift of land so that they may gain greater standing in their church. To impress others, they say that they are giving their all, but secretly they are holding on to a portion of their gain.
In each story, a messenger of God appears to pronounce judgment. The Apostle Peter’s dual announcement, first to Ananias, then to Sapphira, has an immediate effect, as each promptly drops dead. [3] The prophet Elijah, in one of the Bible’s more graphic announcements of judgment, tells Ahab that where Naboth died, Ahab, “dogs will also lick up your blood.” At the heart of each of these judgment stories lies a common message: The God of Israel, the God embodied in the community of Jesus’ disciples, stands on the side of truth against those who practice public deception for private gain. [4]
We might be tempted to ask Jesus, as did Pontius Pilate, “What is truth?” In another context, we might have a good and legitimate discussion about the limits of scientific verification or religious experience in defining truth. We might ponder whether truth is best determined by a visionary individual like Albert Einstein or Martin Luther, or in group process with checks and balances like a peer-reviewed medical journal or Presbyterians working in committees to discern God’s call. But there’s a clear difference between honest disagreements about the truth of a situation, and those who speak dogmatically, like a major-party official from Arizona did when explaining the case for election fraud, “I say it’s valid because I say it is.” [5] An argument based on one individual’s unsupported opinion seems more like the kind of thing our Reformation ancestors opposed when they quarreled with the pope, or that our nation’s founding fathers battled when they stood against a king. Such arguments, based not on evidence but in spite of it, call to mind the dynamics of today’s texts, and their message that God stands on the side of truth.
A commitment to truth-telling isn’t a partisan ploy, but rather a fundamental principle for Presbyterian Christians. Each time we ordain new elders and deacons, our officers vow to be governed by our church’s polity, summarized in Part II of our constitution, the Book of Order. In the chapter on foundations of polity lies a section entitled “Truth and Goodness.” It states in part, “… no opinion can either be more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man’s opinions are. On the contrary, we are persuaded that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise it would be of no consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.” [6]
In our highly anxious political context, it’s worth highlighting the fact that this section is followed by one on “Mutual Forbearance,” part of which says, “… we also believe that there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good characters and principles may differ. And in all these we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.” [7] What has proved true for the health of the Church seems just as valid for our public good: Commitment to truth should be accompanied by mutual forbearance.
Our Presbyterian sister in ministry Kimberly Clayton has said, “We do not have to demonize or devalue the person with whom we disagree …. In humility, we are asked to do everything we can to participate in and work toward God’s justice and reconciliation … and bear with one another in the church …. If we ever think we are no longer members of one another because of our differences, we will become another enclosed monument to death.” [8]
On Thursday, just as I was finishing a first draft of this sermon, I received an e-mail from Donna Crider about a recent letter from the bishops of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Thanks to Donna for pointing me to a source that expresses pastoral concern for truth-telling in a concise and effective way. The bishops wrote, in part:
We refuse to accept the ongoing normalization of lies and deceit.
We recommit ourselves to speaking the truth and pointing to the one who is truth. We … implore … our partners and friends, to join us as we:
· Pledge to be vigilant guardians of truth, refusing to perpetuate lies or half-truths that further corrode the fabric of our society.
· Commit to rigorous fact-checking, honoring God's command to "test everything; hold fast to what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
· Reject the use of humor that normalizes falsehood, remembering that our speech should "always be gracious" (Colossians 4:6).
· Boldly advocate for the marginalized and oppressed, emulating Christ's love for the least among us.
· Courageously interrupt hate speech, standing firm in the knowledge that all are created in God's image. [9]
We’re approaching Election Day. If you ask this pastor about what is important in this year’s election, then you’ll hear about the moral issue of truth-telling. There is a need for Christians to speak a counter-narrative to challenge false narratives, reminding ourselves and others that the God of the gospel is greater than the gods of political-party affiliation. No candidate of any party can save our nation if in the process of placing them in office, we devalue truth-telling and destroy relationships by promoting lies. Truth matters, and Christians should stand on the side of truth.
NOTES
[1] Diana Butler Bass, “Standing Up for Truth,” The Cottage newsletter dated 11 Oct. 2024.
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/13/upshot/trump-black-hispanic-voters-harris.html, accessed 16 Oct 2024.
[3] Ernst Haenchen, in his classic commentary, highlights the history of scholarly debate about this text. Why didn’t Peter give the couple an opportunity to repent? Is the story merely instructive fiction? In any case, says Haenchen, “all that mattered has been said: God visits a dreadful vengeance on deceivers.” Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971, pp. 239-241.
[4] “…YHWH, patron of Naboth the small peasant landowner, was preoccupied with the protection and wellbeing of the vulnerable peasants in the economy, whereas Baal is the guarantor of the predatory policies and practices of Ahab and Jezebel.” Walter Brueggemann, “Anticipating the Election,” Journal for Preachers, Special Election Edition #1, linked via e-mail dated 31 July 2024, p.2.
[5] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maricopa-election-officials-work-to-restore-belief-in-ballot-60-minutes-transcript/ accessed 16 Oct. 2024.
[6] The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., Part 2: Book of Order 2023-2025, F-3.0104.
[7] The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., Part 2: Book of Order 2023-2025, F-3.0105.
[8] Kimberly L. Clayton, “Confidence and Humility in a ‘Purple’ Church,” Journal for Preachers, Special Election Edition #4, linked via e-mail dated 10 Sept. 2024, pp. 4-5.
[9] “ELCA Conference of Bishops Emphasizes the Need to Speak the Truth,” 1 Oct. 2024, https://elca.org/News-and-Events/8247 accessed 16 Oct. 2024.
READ MORE, https://www.fpcedw.org/pastors-blog
