Why Christians Must Be to Loyal to Truth, Not Political Party or Brand

Image

My thoughts below predate COVID-19, masks, hydroxychloroquine, or churches defying public health emergency orders. Last fall, different controversies were exposing problems in how believers evaluate conflicting claims and decide what to believe.

But those problems are still with us, and the current raft of controversies is exposing them even more painfully.

Many Christians who claim to revere the Bible lack biblical habits for evaluating truth claims and consequently lack skill in judging the ethics of situations in a biblical way. It seems almost ubiquitous now—the habit of putting the political/culture-war lenses on first, and embracing or rejecting claims based solely on source classification (friend or foe). The result is that ideas are accepted uncritically if they’re perceived to be from “our people” and rejected reflexively if they’re seen as from “the other side.”

What’s missing is weighing ideas and claims on their own merits—on things like evidence and sound reasoning. Increasingly, what’s completely missing is any nonpolitical consideration of what Scripture teaches and what sound application requires of us.

More than ever, believers need to meditate on a genuinely Christian view of truth and on a genuinely Christian approach to evaluating truth claims. At least five principles are are fundamental that effort.

Principle 1: Only Scripture is infallible.

Christians understand that God is completely reliable on the subject of reality, which is what I mean here by “truth”—what actually is.

  • let God be true though every one were a liar… (ESV, Romans 3:4)
  • in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Colossians 2:3)
  • “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)
  • God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2).

It follows that God’s word is completely reliable in all that it represents as truth.

  • Therefore I consider all your precepts to be right; I hate every false way. (Psalm 119:128)
  • Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. (John 17:17)
  • And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place (2 Peter 1:19)
  • All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction (2 Timothy 3:16)

By contrast, human beings are extremely unreliable as sources of truth, not only because we’re deceitful creatures (Jer. 17:9, John 8:44) but because we’re so often wrong even in what we genuinely believe to be true.

How should this shape our habits? It should lead us to view all truth claims as suspect, regardless of how much we want them to be true or are afraid that they’re true—or how much we like the source.

Principle 2: Truth is more powerful than human leaders.

Leaders come and go. Some lead well for years and do a lot of good, only to catastrophically fail and make us question everything they ever taught or supported. Movements and institutions come and go much the same way.

Truth, on the other hand, continues along, unaffected by what we think or claim. And its inherent power is undiminished.

  • How much better to get wisdom than gold! To get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver. (Proverbs 16:16)
  • and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (John 8:32)
  • Forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens. (Psalm 119:89)

In the end, truth wins. Given enough time, it tends to win in human history, but even when truth loses the battle for minds in human history, it is, itself, unaltered and will eventually be known to all.

  • Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. (Luke12:2)
  • So also good works are conspicuous, and even those that are not cannot remain hidden. (1 Timothy 5:25)
  • if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. (Philippians 3:15)
  • For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)

Principle 3: Our sources aren’t always right.

We’re all easily misled into prizing a person or group more than we prize the truth. It’s not hard to see why. We’re wired to adore and bow before a Person who makes no mistakes. But since Jesus Christ is not physically present to respond to current events, we tend to look to other human authorities to tell us what to think—and we take their word as gospel. It’s understandable, but it’s still idolatrous.

Relying on trusted sources is unavoidable, to some extent. Where it goes off the rails is when we forget that “our team” is capable of error, and we fail to examine and test truth claims before accepting them as certain or echoing them as facts.

But even the best of “our guys” are wrong sometimes.

  • Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. (John 11:13)
  • [Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. (Acts 18:26)
  • But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” (Acts 10:14)
  • I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Galatians 2:14)

Principle 4: “Their” sources aren’t always wrong.

When “us vs. them” thinking takes over, we not only tend to value group loyalty above truth, but we also tend to value defeating the other team above truth. Both of these are species of idolatry, because pursuing truth is part of our loyalty to Christ. Anything we allow to interfere with that is a displacement of Christ’s agenda for someone else’s agenda.

  • We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, (2 Corinthians 10:5)
  • test everything; hold fast what is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
  • But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Hebrews 5:14)
  • The spiritual person judges all things, (1 Corinthians 2:15)

The Scriptures remind us that sometimes truth comes from unexpected places—sometimes from sources that, from our point of view, aren’t reliable.

  • Children: “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children” (Matthew 11:25)
  • The Pharisee, Gamaliel: So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” (Acts 5:38–39)
  • Pagan poets: as even some of your own poets have said (Acts 17:28)
  • Rhoda: They said to her, “You are out of your mind.” (Acts 12:15)
  • Women who reported the resurrection: … but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. (Luke 24:10-11)

Principle 5: We should seek genuine understanding, even of what we reject.

  • A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. (Proverbs 18:2)
  • If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame. (Proverbs 18:13)
  • The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, (Proverbs 15:28)

The current state of public discourse is only a recent expression of a long-standing human problem—also a long-standing Christian problem: in our fondness for strife and winning, we don’t go to the trouble to truly understand opposing views. We don’t listen. Listening involves seeking to understand why people think what they think. We often assume their reasons, but how do they explain their reasons?

Two things can happen when we gain understanding of opposing views.

  1. We may find points of agreement we didn’t know existed.
  2. We may more effectively refute those views because we’re no longer distorting them or lobbing distraction fallacies at them (“Oh yeah, well what about…”?).

When we understand, we argue less, or we argue more precisely, or both. And this is a desire of all who love truth.

Discussion

I will grant that Masks possibly are helpful, though that is not proven. Could be a MASQUERADE. Given the size of the Covid 19 Virus, most masks will not stop it. It’s like stopping mosquitoes with a wire fence. I think there is anecdotal evidence that Hydroxy with zinc is a possible protector. The difference is that some state governments mandate one (masks) and resist the other.

Pastor Mike Harding

Yes. Masquerade. It’s all a plot. The commies are involved, somehow. Along with Soros. Bill Gates is evil. The President rules, ‘cuz the Supreme Court.

‘Merica.

Turn in your hymnals to #358, and let’s sing “Battle Hymn of the Republic.” First, keep your finger on #212, “America the Beautiful.” Let’s stand, as we sing praises to the Lord.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Interesting. This issue seems to bring out of the woodwork those who believe either that government does nothing with an evil motive, or that government always has an evil motive.

Personally, I belong to neither group. I don’t think government is always “out to get me.” However, I also think that if you uncritically believe everything representatives of the government are telling you, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.

Dave Barnhart

I myself have been in government service for 16 years; in various management roles for 14 of these. I have never done anything with evil motives in my capacity. Nor do most government employees. Distinguish between politicians and “the government,” because they are quite different. Also distinguish between local, state and Federal when you refer to “the government.”

When you refer to “the government” concocting a masquerade, know you’re impugning the integrity of countless dedicated public health officials (both civil service and represented) at city, county, state and Federal levels. The hatred of the political class leads otherwise careful people to slander an entire cadre of government employees in an inappropriate way.

There’s a lot of careless talk and imputation of evil motives by people who have little to no idea how “the government” actually works. I can relate countless examples of this.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Tyler, I used the term “government” generally to refer to any government, local, state, or federal. And I would agree with you that it’s not the institution itself, at whatever level, that is the problem. Government is made up of individuals like yourself and like my dad, who served in the Army for > 20 years, and also civil service until retirement age. But individuals can indeed act in an evil fashion or in bad faith, even if many are trying to do their best. And individuals can have an agenda that runs counter to the overall goals of a good government.

The reason I bring out “government” in contrast to just individuals is this — governments were instituted by God and implemented by people to have authority. When this authority is misused, whether to act in bad faith (like perhaps the cop in the George Floyd case — case still to be tried) or to spread misinformation, it’s more damaging than when it comes from say, a celebrity or other figure acknowledged to have some amount of influence in society, because it comes from an office of authority. Humanity has, at least at various times in the past, tended to put trust in our leaders, and to have respect for the authority they exercise. Many in current leadership, including in my state government, have shown that our trust is, at least to some extent, misplaced, and they’ll say anything to either stay in power or to promote a particular agenda that is not a legitimate goal of the office for which they are granted authority.

So to call out government is not to say that it’s everyone involved that is the problem. It may, in fact, be just a small percentage and probably is. Many, like you or my father, are just trying to do the best they can to act in good faith. However, those individuals acting poorly need to be held accountable for bringing down trust in government in general. It’s getting to be so bad these days that whenever I hear a speech, whether from Trump, Pelosi, McConnell, or my state governor, I tend to mostly misbelieve any new information I hear until I can verify it from a number of sources. I’m sure the people working behind the scenes are (mostly) doing the best they can. But they are not the part of government that most people see.

As an example, take the Roman empire. When Christians discuss corrupt governments, we often refer to Rome, since it was in power at the time the NT was written. We often refer to the Caesars to show just how corrupt that government was. But we also know of at least one Christian most likely working in the Roman government mentioned in scripture. There were probably many like him, just trying to do a good job under the circumstances. That doesn’t change our view of the Roman government as a whole, and we can judge our own modern governments in the same way, without implicating every individual as corrupt.

Dave Barnhart

You are the CDC Director, or a State Health Dept Director, something like that. You have a novel virus on the loose infecting millions of people. Hundreds of thousands get seriously ill from, needing hospitalization to survive. 140,000 have died from its impact (please don’t make the silly argument of “died from” vs. “died with”). In a few months, you KNOW the health system will be maxed out with the annual influenza cases, let alone the impact from this new thing. What do you do?

Yep. That’s what I thought.

[Mark_Smith]

Yep. That’s what I thought.

Were you asking me?

First, pretty much everyone in the U.S. got behind the whole “flatten the curve” project. It was so successful, and the curve was flattened so much that most hospitals are losing money and the state they are in is the opposite of being overrun. Take Duke University Hospital, one I can tell you about because it’s close to me, and I know people that work there and have discussed with them their working conditions. They have had whole floors shut down for lack of use, furloughed a number of employees, and the number of Covid patients they have had has not even come close to overrunning the hospital, let alone the ICUs. And this is a world-class facility, one of the best in the U.S. and certainly in the state of N.C., so they would naturally get any patients that are close by. I believe the loss figure I’ve heard is on the order of $200,000,000 from not having patients rather than having too many.

You’ve also read about the construction of massive field hospitals that were never used, and Navy hospital ships that had to serve very few cases of any kind. I suspect that there may have been some hospitals that were close to maxed out on Covid patients, but there certainly haven’t been many.

(Regarding death with Covid vs. death from Covid, I agree that the difference is not large enough to change considerations being sought by government officials trying to handle the pandemic, but it’s hardly a silly or unimportant question. I recently read about a driver who died in a motorcycle accident being counted as a Covid death because he tested positive. Were they trying to say his accident was caused by too much coughing or not being able to breathe? I’m sorry, but correct counts matter. And the fact that cases of recovery have not been as strictly counted as those that have resulted in death has also skewed the numbers.)

However, now that “flatten the curve” has worked well, it’s no longer about overrunning our heath system. Now, it’s all about keeping everything shutdown until there are no more cases or it’s “completely safe” to come out. All this is doing is delaying the inevitable, as even a vaccine that works 100% is considered to be somewhat unlikely, and that any resulting vaccines will be more like flu vaccines — many different ones will be necessary, and none will stop all varieties. The only thing that will help is herd immunity, and the policies currently in place are not getting us there. What people are now realizing is that the officials have no endgame in sight. They hope case numbers go down, but the virus is now out there, and letting millions of people get back to their daily lives will inevitably cause counts to go up again. Making it go slow will only prolong the agony. Eventually, they are going to have to bite the bullet, realize that there is no such thing as absolute safety and that life itself is a risk, and allow things to go more or less back to normal. There will be some losses of course, but society will go on, and Covid will become just one of many diseases that are no longer the problem they once were.

Dave Barnhart

Nothing to see here.

If you prefer the lockdown approach to the approaches taken in South Dakota or Sweden, that’s fine. I just happen to think those governments did a better job with this than most of the rest.

Guess we agree to disagree, or at least disagree to agree.

Dave Barnhart

[Robert Byers]

This feeble attempt to…..

It is ironic how much falsehood you’re packing into your comments under the post you wrote about being loyal to truth. Hypocrite is the kindest word that comes to mind.

Robert, you’re not listening to what I’m actually claiming, much less engaging the arguments.

I think I’ll mostly leave it to readers to look back at what I’ve already said.

I could write up an article on the topic with everything systematically reasoned, but you’d probably just wave your “mischaracterize and dismiss” magic wand and declare it to have disappeared.

…it would still actually be there, though… and readers who have a little curiosity might benefit.

Maybe I will.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Aaron Blumer]

Robert, you’re not listening to what I’m actually claiming, much less engaging the arguments.

I’m not only listening to what you are actually claiming, I’m quoting it. You’re the one who is twisting word meanings and moving goalposts. I’m holding you to account for the actual exact words you used in making that false claim. If you meant something else, you should have said something else. It’s you who is not engaging the argument. And it’s you who is lying.

I’d have a lot more respect for you if you would simply admit that what you said was wrong. Because it was. Period. And your false appeal to authority is telling. You were trying to so hard to bolster an untenable position that you claimed to have seen something (actually multiple somethings, “tests” per your words) that does not and cannot exist. You weren’t content with citing general studies that are subject to the same observation biases as the HCQ study (which I had pointed out), so you embellished the authenticity of your sources. Common tactic, but not honest. Then when you were called on it you shifted your ground and cited other studies—which again I pointed out did not really support your position very well—and you claimed that is what you were talking about in the first place, even though it is very different.

I started by calling what you said a falsehood. That was a courtesy. I now call it what it is. A lie. And you’ve continued to lie to try to cover it up. Anyone who is reading can see that in black and white.. It’s time for you to stop.

Well, I can’t very well resist writing that article now, can I? ;-)

I’m not going to be baited into an emotional response by the accusation of lying, etc. either, by the way.

On this. A little taste of what’s coming…

And did you even read past the first two lines of the summary? Because “appears to be effective” and “suggests protection” is not the standard of proof you’ve been calling for. And here’s what the summary also says. “Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective.” That really doesn’t go very far in proving your point.

It’s not clear to me that you know what my point is.

But for more objective readers, I want to point out that the quoted bit above is in reference to “worn intermittently” by health care workers in a clinical setting.

A bit more context helps, but mostly, it just needs more careful reading. I bolded part to help with that…

Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective. When used by sick patients randomised controlled trials suggested protection of well contacts.

Elsewhere in the article…

In general, the results show protection for healthcare workers and community members, and likely benefit of masks used as source control. We found eight clinical trials (Aiello et al., 2012; Simmerman et al., 2011; Larson et al., 2010; Aiello et al., 2010; MacIntyre et al., 2009; Cowling et al., 2008, Suess et al., 2012; Cowling et al., 2009) on the use of masks in the community (Table 1).

Well, the report is complex, as most of these things are, and there’s a good bit more in it (like 6 more RCTs on community mask use - mostly flu) but I wanted to at least clarify the meaning of that excerpt.

I can concede that saying there are “double blind placebo controlled trials” on mask use was a bit sloppy on my part. DBPCTs are a species in the larger family of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)… and really only apply to trials involving substances being tested. So, comparing masks to HCQ, you have to speak in terms of the broader family of controlled studies—RCTs—to compare apples to apples.

In other words, a mask RCT is the equivalent of a medication DBPCT as far as scientific rigor goes.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

We wore masks in church today. We wear masks every time we meet. People need to take a deep breath (perhaps through their masks) and relax. I have the idea of having a mask custom-made that reads, “The Breath of Life,” but nobody in my family thinks it’s funny.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Church is a bit of a dilemma. There are many in the area that are openly ignoring the governor’s mask order. I’m not at all comfortable with that vis a vis Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2, but I’m also not wanting to be a trouble maker, so to speak.

Churches should try to obtain supplies of masks that can be distributed to guests who arrive without them, and should actively encourage mask wearing in general at services. I think we’re allowed to not wear them while doing public speaking at a distance… which makes sense to me.

You’re going to have to move it to take communion, obviously, but the thing many still don’t get about masks is that it’s about reduction of spreading germs, not total prevention of spreading germs. Reduction is good. Hand washing reduces most, masks some (most likely), distance definitely some, cleaning surfaces a bit…. of course staying home and connecting via Zoom.

It all adds up (or more accurately, it all subtracts down). 100% consistency isn’t required for there to be benefit. Should gangs of protestors have been allowed to crowd together when other groups were banned? No (but were other groups banned from gathering together outdoors? I’m not sure that even happened), but it doesn’t follow that “if we’re failing to be smart here we should go ahead and be stupid there also” … really? Think that through.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.