Lies from the pulpit-is there ever a justification

[Godsunworthyservant]

Over the centuries, things have been stated by the church and it's leaders based on ignorance that were later proven to be false. I'm not taking about those instances but of things that are totally fabricated by someone who either knew better or could have known better with just a little precursory research. Here's just a couple of examples from 2 different generations. The first is a story told by an evangelist (who shall remain unnamed because the point of the post isn't to judge anyone) in the mid-60s. It was a time when computer science was becoming better known generally but few knew the actual workings of computers or the limitations, so there was much speculation and fear surrounding their actual capabilities. It was also a time when the church was in an all out war on Darwin's theory of evolution. The story was that NASA had undertaken a project to confirm the age of the earth by using a "super-computer" to go back to the beginning of time. According to the story, the computer was able to go back and determined that the Earth was exactly the 6000 or so years that are indicated by a literal reading of the OT "begats", or lineage except that it found there was exactly one day missing. This puzzled the scientists until a Christian colleague reminded them of the story in Joshua Chapter 10 where God held the sun still for one day until Joshua could finish a battle. The story goes that once they fed that data into the computer it verified the exact timeline of the beginning of the earth from the Bible. We now know that computers have never had such an ability and so someone had to make up that story knowing that it wasn't true.

The second example is more recently an evangelist, in an effort to bolster the argument that America is a Christian nation, stated that 29 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence held seminary degrees. This is patently false, but despite that I've heard many others repeat it as true in many 4th of July or Memorial Day sermons. For the record only one, John Witherspoon had a seminary degree and was actually a preacher. Actually 27 didn't even attend college, 4 received secular degrees from Penn, 3 received secular degrees from Princeton, 8 received secular degrees from Harvard, 4 received secular degrees from Yale, 1 attended Westminster, 3 received secular degrees from William and Mary, 3 received secular degrees from Cambridge, 1 attended Oxford and Charles Carroll did was a graduate of the College of Louis the Grande in Bourges.

Recently I've noticed that this has become more prevalent since pastors began getting involved in politics from the pulpit. So, the question is what do you think is a pastor's responsibility to research their claims and refrain from sharing them from the pulpit unless they are proven true and is there ever a justification for telling something that is patently false from the pulpit?

 

[Brihaha]

Recently I've noticed that this has become more prevalent since pastors began getting involved in politics from the pulpit. So, the question is what do you think is a pastor's responsibility to research their claims and refrain from sharing them from the pulpit unless they are proven true and is there ever a justification for telling something that is patently false from the pulpit?

I believe the pastor's responsibility is to research his Bible and share whatever the Holy Spirit compels him to share from God's Word. It's rather impossible to mandate him to only telling the congregation provable things, simply due to the nature of faith.

I don't really like speculations regarding justifications for sin. But perhaps if there was a disaster or pestilence occurring in which the congregation looked to him for encouragement and leadership. He may assure the frightened folks he wasn't afraid due to his faith in God. Even tho he might be terrified himself.

 

[PloverWing]

So, the question is what do you think is a pastor's responsibility to research their claims and refrain from sharing them from the pulpit unless they are proven true and is there ever a justification for telling something that is patently false from the pulpit?

Wow, I haven't thought about the NASA/Joshua story in ages.

I expect a pastor to be telling the truth in the pulpit at all times, to the best of their ability. I acknowledge lots of difficulties in this: only partial information is available, some things are matters of personal opinion and preference, fallible humans make mistakes, sometimes one simplifies for brevity, and so forth. Pastors are human and aren't infallible. But I expect pastors to do reasonable diligence in determining whether what they say is true.

When I catch a preacher being careless about truth in mundane matters (like the NASA thing), I assume they're also going to be careless about truth when they speak about God. If the preacher actually lies -- says something they know isn't true, to manipulate me into acting a certain way -- then that's a deep betrayal of trust.

It's hard to think of a situation in which a preacher putting their personal word of honor (plus the authority of the church) behind an actual lie would be morally justified.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

That is one of the reasons i no longer go to church, not theses exact examples. But just simply that preachers in many ways are too worldy and bring this to their preaching.

 

[Miles]

People have a tendency to repeat what they read and hear. Especially if it comes from a trusted source, but even trusted sources can spread bad information. This isn't unique to Christians. It's endemic to humanity. Pastors have a responsibility, yes, but they're also human. Sometimes, mistakes are made in good faith. Being mistaken isn't the same as lying.

The challenge is to minimize falsehoods while also being brave enough to say anything at all. Each of us is ignorant about certain things. That's the case with everybody. There are always new things to learn.

I'd pay more attention to what they say after learning and being convinced that they were legitimately mistaken. Do they continue to spread inaccurate information or do they change what they say?

Which reminds me of all the falsehoods that are spread online. Now more than ever in the digital space we have reason to be skeptical about what we see and hear. Social media echo chambers, made up stories, deepfakes, etc. A great deal of wisdom and discernment is needed.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

I believe the pastor's responsibility is to research his Bible and share whatever the Holy Spirit compels him to share from God's Word. It's rather impossible to mandate him to only telling the congregation provable things, simply due to the nature of faith.

I don't really like speculations regarding justifications for sin. But perhaps if there was a disaster or pestilence occurring in which the congregation looked to him for encouragement and leadership. He may assure the frightened folks he wasn't afraid due to his faith in God. Even tho he might be terrified h

That is why I worded the post the way I did. It refers only to those untruths that weren't out of ignorance but actual fabricated lies, which is why I used the examples I did. Both of these examples were just that, fabrications with no basis in truth. The first example was obviously made up to take advantage of people's ignorance of Computers at the time and the second was made during a period when we had the internet, so it was easy to verify and just a easy to refute. And for what it's worth, it was proven false shortly after it was first stated but just earlier this year I herd it still being repeated in a 4th of July sermon by a well known TV evangelist.

I agree that there's really no justification for sin, and lying is indeed sin. You allude to the fact that it might be OK in instances where "there was a disaster or pestilence occurring in which the congregation looked to him for encouragement and leadership, he may assure the frightened folks he wasn't afraid due to his faith in God. I disagree. I don't see any scenario where this would be acceptable in the eyes of God. That said, I don't think either of the examples I shared falls into that category anyway.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

Wow, I haven't thought about the NASA/Joshua story in ages.

I expect a pastor to be telling the truth in the pulpit at all times, to the best of their ability. I acknowledge lots of difficulties in this: only partial information is available, some things are matters of personal opinion and preference, fallible humans make mistakes, sometimes one simplifies for brevity, and so forth. Pastors are human and aren't infallible. But I expect pastors to do reasonable diligence in determining whether what they say is true.

When I catch a preacher being careless about truth in mundane matters (like the NASA thing), I assume they're also going to be careless about truth when they speak about God. If the preacher actually lies -- says something they know isn't true, to manipulate me into acting a certain way -- then that's a deep betrayal of trust.

It's hard to think of a situation in which a preacher putting their personal word of honor (plus the authority of the church) behind an actual lie would be morally justified.

I'm glad to see someone who is old enough to remember the Joshua/NASA story. You speak of only partial information available, personal opinion and preference and mistakes, all of which I understand, which is why I chose the examples that I did, as they are none of the above. They are simply fabrications and in the case of the latter, even though it was proven false shortly after it was first put forth, it's still being repeated by pastors. I heard it in the 4th of July sermon from a well known TV evangelist just this year. I agree that we can't hold anyone responsible for mistakes but in these cases there was no mistake. The statements were pure fabrications and the author had to know that fact.

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

People have a tendency to repeat what they read and hear. Especially if it comes from a trusted source, but even trusted sources can spread bad information. This isn't unique to Christians. It's endemic to humanity. Pastors have a responsibility, yes, but they're also human. Sometimes, mistakes are made in good faith. Being mistaken isn't the same as lying.

The challenge is to minimize falsehoods while also being brave enough to say anything at all. Each of us is ignorant about certain things. That's the case with everybody. There are always new things to learn.

I'd pay more attention to what they say after learning and being convinced that they were legitimately mistaken. Do they continue to spread inaccurate information or do they change what they say?

Which reminds me of all the falsehoods that are spread online. Now more than ever in the digital space we have reason to be skeptical about what we see and hear. Social media echo chambers, made up stories, deepfakes, etc. A great deal of wisdom and discernment is needed.

I purposely steered clear of discussion of telling the lies anywhere aside from the pulpit for that very reason. The internet is not the church and my point is about those who tell lies in the church, specifically from the pulpit. You state that people have a tendency to repeat what they read and hear, especially from a trusted source. I believe that first and foremost, the pulpit should be a reliable and trusted source so therein lies the problem. In these cases I chose examples that were obviously fabricated and especially in the case of thee latter, easy to verify. That said, while that quote was debunked shortly after it was first made, it's still being repeated in the pulpit.

 

[Brihaha]

That is why I worded the post the way I did. It refers only to those untruths that weren't out of ignorance but actual fabricated lies, which is why I used the examples I did. Both of these examples were just that, fabrications with no basis in truth. The first example was obviously made up to take advantage of people's ignorance of Computers at the time and the second was made during a period when we had the internet, so it was easy to verify and just a easy to refute. And for what it's worth, it was proven false shortly after it was first stated but just earlier this year I herd it still being repeated in a 4th of July sermon by a well known TV evangelist.

I agree that there's really no justification for sin, and lying is indeed sin. You allude to the fact that it might be OK in instances where "there was a disaster or pestilence occurring in which the congregation looked to him for encouragement and leadership, he may assure the frightened folks he wasn't afraid due to his faith in God. I disagree. I don't see any scenario where this would be acceptable in the eyes of God. That said, I don't think either of the examples I shared falls into that category anyway.

You are probably right. It likely isn't acceptable for the pastor to even lie to the congregation to allay their own fear. I was trying to find something I might understand could be justified for being untruthful to the terrified people. I admire your faith and wanted to jump start the thread.

 

[I's2C]

1Pe 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

Judgement begins at the pulpit: that means the small to the large all those that speak as if they speak for GOD best know what they are talking about. And GOD help if you intentionally deceive one of GODS children. All mans word will be held to their account that means preacher of mega churches to those on a Christian site.

 

[com7fy8]

In the United States, in my opinion, there is a political civil war between liberal Democrats and evangelical Republicans. And lying is a method used in war.

And if you want a person to be fooled by your lying, this can mean you want the person to be stupid, and not making sure with God like the Bible says to do >

"Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

The only way to test anything reliably for what God knows is good, is to make sure with God about what He knows He wants. So, by lying to people, I am not helping them become able to test reliably with God.

When I catch a preacher being careless about truth in mundane matters (like the NASA thing), I assume they're also going to be careless about truth when they speak about God. If the preacher actually lies -- says something they know isn't true, to manipulate me into acting a certain way -- then that's a deep betrayal of trust.

Betraying is hating, including by trying to keep people foolish so they don't make sure with God and find out how. So, lying can be hating, by actively trying to make someone stupid enough to believe your lie and not be able to test reliably with God. So it is against the person becoming intimate with God and His reliable guiding so better than how you could be trying to influence the person!!

About being careless with secular information > you say this can mean a preacher also will be careless with God's word. And I would say Jesus agrees with you >

"he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much" > in Matthew 16:10.

 

[Psalm 27]

Over the centuries, things have been stated by the church and it's leaders based on ignorance that were later proven to be false. I'm not taking about those instances but of things that are totally fabricated by someone who either knew better or could have known better with just a little precursory research. Here's just a couple of examples from 2 different generations. The first is a story told by an evangelist (who shall remain unnamed because the point of the post isn't to judge anyone) in the mid-60s. It was a time when computer science was becoming better known generally but few knew the actual workings of computers or the limitations, so there was much speculation and fear surrounding their actual capabilities. It was also a time when the church was in an all out war on Darwin's theory of evolution. The story was that NASA had undertaken a project to confirm the age of the earth by using a "super-computer" to go back to the beginning of time. According to the story, the computer was able to go back and determined that the Earth was exactly the 6000 or so years that are indicated by a literal reading of the OT "begats", or lineage except that it found there was exactly one day missing. This puzzled the scientists until a Christian colleague reminded them of the story in Joshua Chapter 10 where God held the sun still for one day until Joshua could finish a battle. The story goes that once they fed that data into the computer it verified the exact timeline of the beginning of the earth from the Bible. We now know that computers have never had such an ability and so someone had to make up that story knowing that it wasn't true.

The second example is more recently an evangelist, in an effort to bolster the argument that America is a Christian nation, stated that 29 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence held seminary degrees. This is patently false, but despite that I've heard many others repeat it as true in many 4th of July or Memorial Day sermons. For the record only one, John Witherspoon had a seminary degree and was actually a preacher. Actually 27 didn't even attend college, 4 received secular degrees from Penn, 3 received secular degrees from Princeton, 8 received secular degrees from Harvard, 4 received secular degrees from Yale, 1 attended Westminster, 3 received secular degrees from William and Mary, 3 received secular degrees from Cambridge, 1 attended Oxford and Charles Carroll did was a graduate of the College of Louis the Grande in Bourges.

Recently I've noticed that this has become more prevalent since pastors began getting involved in politics from the pulpit. So, the question is what do you think is a pastor's responsibility to research their claims and refrain from sharing them from the pulpit unless they are proven true and is there ever a justification for telling something that is patently false from the pulpit?

People will say anything to be interesting.
There's no justification for lies.
God hates a lying tongue, and to be honest, so do I 'I hate and abhor lying' (ps 119)

Im sick to death of the bs from the pulpit. And so was Jesus

Happy Christmas

 

[com7fy8]

I don't really like speculations regarding justifications for sin. But perhaps if there was a disaster or pestilence occurring in which the congregation looked to him for encouragement and leadership. He may assure the frightened folks he wasn't afraid due to his faith in God. Even tho he might be terrified himself.

We can trust God to stop the fear and make us His way so we do not give in to fear >

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment." (in 1 John 4:18)

So, I would advise that a pastor has already preached this, long before some terrifying thing comes along. And everyone prays and seeks God to perfect us in His love so we are prepared to not fear when trouble comes.

"'And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.'" (Matthew 24:6)

There are people who did not get prepared so they would not fear; and so, now evil people have power over them to cause them great spiritual and emotional suffering.

So, in case a pastor finds himself where he feels it can help to lie by saying he is not afraid, possibly he has not helped prepare his church to be strong in Jesus so they would be ready in God's love to resist Satan and make him flee >

"Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you." (James 4:7)

But there are pastors who control their people, including using lies; they do not entrust their people to how God can take care of us >

"casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you." (1 Peter 5:7)

So, why just lie and say you're not afraid, when instead we can say we have a problem and trust God to solve our problem?

God's word shows He expects us to not fear or worry >

"'Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.'" (John 14:27)

Worry is a pathological lier and abuser, by the way way; yet, ones keep trusting what their worry tells them. But if some human lies to them just one time and abuses them less than worry cruelly treats them, they might never forgive or talk to that person again. But worry does more lying and abuse than many humans do, but people keep trusting and obeying worry.

And Hebrews 2:14-15 says Jesus died "that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." (in Hebeews 2:14-15)

So, it looks like "fear of death" is slavery to Satan. And Jesus came and died in order to release us from the Satanic slavery of "fear of death".

So, if a pastor tells people he's not afraid, when he is, this could make them feel better, but this does not solve their problem.

 

[Brihaha]

We can trust God to stop the fear and make us His way so we do not give in to fear >

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment." (in 1 John 4:18)

So, I would advise that a pastor has already preached this, long before some terrifying thing comes along. And everyone prays and seeks God to perfect us in His love so we are prepared to not fear when trouble comes.

"'And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.'" (Matthew 24:6)

There are people who did not get prepared so they would not fear; and so, now evil people have power over them to cause them great spiritual and emotional suffering.

So, in case a pastor finds himself where he feels it can help to lie by saying he is not afraid, possibly he has not helped prepare his church to be strong in Jesus so they would be ready in God's love to resist Satan and make him flee >

"Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you." (James 4:7)

But there are pastors who control their people, including using lies; they do not entrust their people to how God can take care of us >

"casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you." (1 Peter 5:7)

So, why just lie and say you're not afraid, when instead we can say we have a problem and trust God to solve our problem?

God's word shows He expects us to not fear or worry >

"'Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.'" (John 14:27)

Worry is a pathological lier and abuser, by the way way; yet, ones keep trusting what their worry tells them. But if some human lies to them just one time and abuses them less than worry cruelly treats them, they might never forgive or talk to that person again. But worry does more lying and abuse than many humans do, but people keep trusting and obeying worry.

And Hebrews 2:14-15 says Jesus died "that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." (in Hebeews 2:14-15)

So, it looks like "fear of death" is slavery to Satan. And Jesus came and died in order to release us from the Satanic slavery of "fear of death".

So, if a pastor tells people he's not afraid, when he is, this could make them feel better, but this does not solve their problem.

That is a great post. This is why I read here daily and post often myself. I learn so much from honest discussion with knowledgeable people like yourself. I am merely a novice in loving God with all my heart and strength. Thank you.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Accepting anything science says about God's creation is bringing lies into a church. If you want to teach about God's creation use The Bible, why do you think it is in there. So when satan's lies about God's creation are brought up, the believer is equipped with The Bible to be able to say not so fast. Let me check what you are saying with God's creation account. Too bad that is not how most churches function.

 

[Richard T]

Over the centuries, things have been stated by the church and it's leaders based on ignorance that were later proven to be false. I'm not taking about those instances but of things that are totally fabricated by someone who either knew better or could have known better with just a little precursory research. Here's just a couple of examples from 2 different generations. The first is a story told by an evangelist (who shall remain unnamed because the point of the post isn't to judge anyone) in the mid-60s. It was a time when computer science was becoming better known generally but few knew the actual workings of computers or the limitations, so there was much speculation and fear surrounding their actual capabilities. It was also a time when the church was in an all out war on Darwin's theory of evolution. The story was that NASA had undertaken a project to confirm the age of the earth by using a "super-computer" to go back to the beginning of time. According to the story, the computer was able to go back and determined that the Earth was exactly the 6000 or so years that are indicated by a literal reading of the OT "begats", or lineage except that it found there was exactly one day missing. This puzzled the scientists until a Christian colleague reminded them of the story in Joshua Chapter 10 where God held the sun still for one day until Joshua could finish a battle. The story goes that once they fed that data into the computer it verified the exact timeline of the beginning of the earth from the Bible. We now know that computers have never had such an ability and so someone had to make up that story knowing that it wasn't true.

The second example is more recently an evangelist, in an effort to bolster the argument that America is a Christian nation, stated that 29 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence held seminary degrees. This is patently false, but despite that I've heard many others repeat it as true in many 4th of July or Memorial Day sermons. For the record only one, John Witherspoon had a seminary degree and was actually a preacher. Actually 27 didn't even attend college, 4 received secular degrees from Penn, 3 received secular degrees from Princeton, 8 received secular degrees from Harvard, 4 received secular degrees from Yale, 1 attended Westminster, 3 received secular degrees from William and Mary, 3 received secular degrees from Cambridge, 1 attended Oxford and Charles Carroll did was a graduate of the College of Louis the Grande in Bourges.

Recently I've noticed that this has become more prevalent since pastors began getting involved in politics from the pulpit. So, the question is what do you think is a pastor's responsibility to research their claims and refrain from sharing them from the pulpit unless they are proven true and is there ever a justification for telling something that is patently false from the pulpit?

You make a good point. Many preachers are out of their league sometimes when they start preaching on economics, politics, or even medicine (Covid an example). They should research carefully and objectively, nothing that social science claims CAN NEVER BE PROVEN, SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS may also have competing explanations. I guess everyone can be a bit lazy about just taking something off social media and accepting it as fact as in these case on seminary degrees. Perhaps if Harvard back then was a religious school, they counted that? Terms such as exact definition of a seminary degree might help but likely people just twisting their version of facts or outright lying. Having any agenda other than the Holy Spirits is a distraction and grievous anyway.

 

[Richard T]

Over the centuries, things have been stated by the church and it's leaders based on ignorance that were later proven to be false. I'm not taking about those instances but of things that are totally fabricated by someone who either knew better or could have known better with just a little precursory research. Here's just a couple of examples from 2 different generations. The first is a story told by an evangelist (who shall remain unnamed because the point of the post isn't to judge anyone) in the mid-60s. It was a time when computer science was becoming better known generally but few knew the actual workings of computers or the limitations, so there was much speculation and fear surrounding their actual capabilities. It was also a time when the church was in an all out war on Darwin's theory of evolution. The story was that NASA had undertaken a project to confirm the age of the earth by using a "super-computer" to go back to the beginning of time. According to the story, the computer was able to go back and determined that the Earth was exactly the 6000 or so years that are indicated by a literal reading of the OT "begats", or lineage except that it found there was exactly one day missing. This puzzled the scientists until a Christian colleague reminded them of the story in Joshua Chapter 10 where God held the sun still for one day until Joshua could finish a battle. The story goes that once they fed that data into the computer it verified the exact timeline of the beginning of the earth from the Bible. We now know that computers have never had such an ability and so someone had to make up that story knowing that it wasn't true.

The second example is more recently an evangelist, in an effort to bolster the argument that America is a Christian nation, stated that 29 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence held seminary degrees. This is patently false, but despite that I've heard many others repeat it as true in many 4th of July or Memorial Day sermons. For the record only one, John Witherspoon had a seminary degree and was actually a preacher. Actually 27 didn't even attend college, 4 received secular degrees from Penn, 3 received secular degrees from Princeton, 8 received secular degrees from Harvard, 4 received secular degrees from Yale, 1 attended Westminster, 3 received secular degrees from William and Mary, 3 received secular degrees from Cambridge, 1 attended Oxford and Charles Carroll did was a graduate of the College of Louis the Grande in Bourges.

Recently I've noticed that this has become more prevalent since pastors began getting involved in politics from the pulpit. So, the question is what do you think is a pastor's responsibility to research their claims and refrain from sharing them from the pulpit unless they are proven true and is there ever a justification for telling something that is patently false from the pulpit?

 

[Godsunworthyservant]

You make a good point. Many preachers are out of their league sometimes when they start preaching on economics, politics, or even medicine (Covid an example). They should research carefully and objectively, nothing that social science claims CAN NEVER BE PROVEN, SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS may also have competing explanations. I guess everyone can be a bit lazy about just taking something off social media and accepting it as fact as in these case on seminary degrees. Perhaps if Harvard back then was a religious school, they counted that? Terms such as exact definition of a seminary degree might help but likely people just twisting their version of facts or outright lying. Having any agenda other than the Holy Spirits is a distraction and grievous anyway.

I looked into those things and while Harvard has always had a School of Divinity, none of the Harvard grads attended it. Yale was originally like a seminary, so while those who attended Yale didn't receive divinity degrees, you could count them. That still falls well short of the claim. As a matter of fact, for the claim to be true, since 27 of the signers didn't even attend college, almost every college grad would have to have a seminary degree.

 

[Richard T]

I looked into those things and while Harvard has always had a School of Divinity, none of the Harvard grads attended it. Yale was originally like a seminary, so while those who attended Yale didn't receive divinity degrees, you could count them. That still falls well short of the claim. As a matter of fact, for the claim to be true, since 27 of the signers didn't even attend college, almost every college grad would have to have a seminary degree.

I did not doubt your claims and I trust you were factual and appreciate you bringing this misconception out. I guess what I was thinking about most is that as Harvard was founded as a religious school, then if it were still that when some founders went there, perhaps some might count that as "seminary?"