Lying isn’t always a bad thing, is it?
On the last day of August 2023, Holden Thorp, the editor of Science, published an op-ed column in the Los Angeles Times. The piece ran on the last day of Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s tenure as Stanford University president. Thorp announced that Science was retracting two articles because of serious concerns regarding Tessier-Lavigne’s research. The decision was a result of investigations launched by a variety of interested parties, including the Stanford school paper and the university itself.
In the end, the inquiries concluded that “Tessier-Lavigne did not have direct knowledge of the errors, but that he did not catch or make enough effort to correct them.” Data had been manipulated, and misconceptions fostered.
The research papers had borne false witness of the Old Testament variety, fueled by a host of other sins, including greed, pride and ambition.
This tempest at the prestigious West Coast university pales in comparison to the typhoon that had already been brewing in a Harvard teapot on the East Coast. There, Harvard University professor Francesca Gino was caught fibbing about her research, which was about — incroyable — dishonesty!
Gino is a university all-star. A well-liked behavioral scientist, Gino routinely publishes up to 10 academic articles a year, compared to the typical two or three of other professors. She has a schedule that is crammed with financially rewarding speaking opportunities at conferences and corporate events. On top of these remunerative rewards, she is paid more than $1 million a year by Harvard.
She also writes books. Her most recent book is Rebel Talent: Why It Pays to Break the Rules at Work and in Life (2018). Its theme is that “contrarians, troublemakers, and chaos-raisers are the world’s real innovators and thought leaders, and that there’s a rebel inside each of us.”
But what got Gino’s inner rebel in trouble, however, was her research on dishonesty; in particular, elaborate and extensive research about student cheating in school. Among the findings she wrote or endorsed was a well-known study that found students “were more likely to cheat if they had seen a peer from their same school cheating, and another study that found dishonesty leads to higher creativity.”
Dishonesty leads to higher creativity? Yes — creative cheating. In any case, Harvard Business School put Gino on leave as their internal investigation continued. Three journals retracted her research articles amid allegations that she manipulated data and committed what amounts to academic misconduct and fraud.
In other words, the creative rebel and doyenne of dishonesty habitually broke the ninth commandment: Thou shall not fib, prevaricate, deceive, manipulate, dissemble, play fast and loose with the truth, or equivocate. In other words, thou shall not lie! Or, as the Bible puts it: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (v. 9).
So, although our text is the most well-known of two places where one can find the Ten Commandments in the Bible, today’s topic will cover only one of them — the one about lying, because last year, 2023, seemed to be the Year of the Liar.
Lying Isn’t Always Bad, Is it?
It would be a lie to say that lying is always morally and ethically wrong. For example, everyone knows that a well-placed lie is vital to the longevity of the marriage. When she asks whether this dress makes her look fat (her words), you know that this is not a question of fashion sense, dress design, colors or hues. You know the question is aimed to gauge your interest in an enduring, long-lasting marriage. You respond accordingly. You can tell the gawd-awful truth and be served with divorce papers within 48 hours, or you can lie because you know the lie will save or preserve the marriage. The same principle applies to the husband sporting a new mustache, gold necklace or comb-over. The son taking care of his elderly father with dementia might lie to him 10 times a day. The lies make his dad comfortable and often set his mind at ease. These fibs are useful and thus morally and ethical permissible. To speak frankly in such contexts would be hurtful, tactless, boorish and cruel.
Some ethicists call a benevolent obfuscation a “white” lie, evoking the image of a falsehood that is, at its core, pure, without guile and innocent. A white lie is a social lubricant — a banal but friendly fib universally practiced by those with an emotional IQ over 50. It’s a lie that means no harm. The ninth commandment refers to lies that are devious and hurtful — statements that are “against your neighbor.” On the contrary, white lies are not against anything. They are pro-cooperation, pro-sensitivity, pro-tactfulness. After all, politeness — as someone has said — is half good manners and half good lying. Such sensibilities are born of compassion and empathy. “You’re going to get better in no time at all,” you say at the bedside of a friend whom you know will be dead within a fortnight. You want to protect her from stress and anxiety. You are sensitive to her feelings.
Finally, an untruth may be necessary to protect your own privacy or that of others. You do not share someone’s private information without permission. Likewise, you do not share your own private information with strangers, or even with casual friends. And no true friend would ask you to reveal personal and intimate secrets — like whether you have ever practiced kissing in front of a mirror, or whether you drool in your sleep. And if such questions are posed, you lie through your teeth, that is, with a smile on your face, and rightfully so.
Pants on Fire
The ninth commandment, however, deals with serious, damaging, hardcore lies. What’s interesting is that we all intuitively understand the difference between a decent, good lie and a pernicious prevarication. In grade school, we teased and sang some variation of:
Liar, liar, pants on fire,
Hanging by a telephone wire
While you’re there, cut your hair
And stick it down your underwear.
We know when we’re telling a bald-faced, bodacious lie. No question about it. Without doubt, your congregation knows the difference between a compassionate lie and a deliberately deceptive and damaging one. So why bother discussing what everyone already knows?
Because this review of the ninth commandment falls under the category of a wellness checkup or palliative care. It is the annual teeth cleaning — unpleasant perhaps, but vitally important. So, let’s dive into it, beginning first and briefly with philosophy rather than theology.
German philosopher Immanuel Kant is notorious for his intractable views on the morality of lying. He has been accused of proposing that it would be morally wrong for a man to lie to a murderer about the whereabouts of the wife, daughter or mother. His views have been called hysterical, full of “repellent fanaticism” and bad temper. But he does make at least one interesting point to consider.
Kant argued that we have a moral duty to tell the truth because lying undermines the principle of universality — that is, something that is true and has been true at all times, everywhere and regardless of cultural conditions. If lying were ever to become an acceptable norm, trust and communication would totally break down. This is why we have laws against perjury and bribery.
If you asked a Chinese national living in his hometown of Shenzhen whether he wanted his court case to be tried in Shenzhen or across the nearby border in Hong Kong, you can probably guess what his answer would be. Our answer would be the same. We want a judicial system where the truth can be heard — at all times. Honesty — not lying — is critical to justice and a thriving economy.
It is also the sine qua non of social and cultural cohesion. For a community to function smoothly, it relies on trust and honesty. Lying erodes trust and can lead to a breakdown in social norms, and continual deception can harm relationships, institutions and social bonds.
And then there’s the problem of the slippery slope: If it is okay to allow lying in some situations, it soon might become difficult to draw clear lines between what are morally justifiable lies and unjustifiable lies. This can lead to moral confusion and ethical inconsistency.
What Does the Bible Say?
Let’s move away from Kant and go to a more trusted source: Scripture.
The Bible says, “Just don’t do it.” It’s the ninth commandment. We are ordered by no less an authority than the holy and sacred Scriptures.
We should not lie.
And yet we do. The patriarch Jacob is well-known as a snarky and sneaking scoundrel whom you wouldn’t trust with your grandmother’s jewels. His reputation, thanks to the way he stole his twin brother’s birthright and how he got — with his mother’s help — his father’s dying benediction, is richly deserved.
Then there’s the Israeli foot-soldier Achan. When the Israelites first began their invasion of Canaan, Achan decided to steal some of the “devoted things” he’d recovered from a recent raid. What a weasel. That’s a violation of the eighth commandment. But to make it work, breaking the ninth commandment had to be a part of the game plan as well. Perhaps he’d forgotten his Torah lessons: “Be sure your sin will find you out” (Numbers 32:23). He was found out, and he and his family were stoned to death. You can read about it in Joshua 7.
Another striking example of the Bible’s harsh view of lying is found in Acts 5, where Ananias and Sapphira, a devout married couple, were caught in a lie about the size of their donation to the church. The apostle Peter got wind of it and confronted them: “Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? … You did not lie to us but to God” (Acts 5: 3-4). They were both caught in the lie and were so shocked that they both had a cardiac event and died on the spot.
Honesty and total transparency is the best policy after all. The bottom line is that honesty is about best practices. It’s a practical thing. If you don’t lie, you never have to remember what you said. If you don’t create a web of falsehoods, you’ll never get caught in a sticky situation.
Holden Thorp, editor of Science, defended his decision to retract two articles published in his journal by saying, “I hope that this move will help illustrate the importance of transparency in our field, especially around the fallible humanity of its scientists, their work and the publishing system that disseminates it.”
Honesty promotes trust and confidence. Lying doesn’t.
And the Bible tells us not to do it.
So, let’s not do it.
Amen.
—Timothy Merrill and Carl Wilton contributed to this material.
Sources:
Bidarian, Nadia. “Stanford president to resign following findings of manipulation in academic research.” cnn.com,
July 19, 2023. Retrieved September 5, 2023.
Mahon, James Edwin. “The truth about Kant on lies.” Oxford Academic, Chapter 11, 201-224. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195327939.003.0012. July 2009. Retrieved September 11, 2023.
Shin, Rachel. “A Harvard professor raking in over $1 million a year who specialized in ‘dishonesty’ was accused of fabricating research. 3 retractions have already occurred.” Fortune. Fortune.com, August 2, 2023. Retrieved August 12, 2023.
Thorp, Holden. “We’re retracting two papers from Stanford’s outgoing president. That’s part of how science should work.” latimes.com, August 31, 2023. This is an op-ed piece by the editor-in-chief of Science. Retrieved September 5, 2023.
Psalm 19
What Is One Possible Approach to the Text?
Finding God. The “search” or “quest” motif is a familiar one in literature. Finding Nemo (2003) and Finding Dory (2016), produced by Pixar Animation Studios, capture this theme. Do you remember the Sean Connery film, Finding Forrester (2000)? Great movie. Or, Finding Carter, the MTV teen drama (two seasons, 2014-2016). The Iliad and The Odyssey are ancient examples. The quest for the Holy Grail. Captain Ahab’s quest to find Moby Dick. Finding Bigfoot. Many other examples exist, including the biggest quest of all: finding God! In this psalm, the writer offers two ways to discover God: in natural revelation, i.e., creation, and in the written Word of God. You can take it from here.
What Does the Text Say?
This well-known psalm seems to fall into two sections. Indeed, some scholars argue that Psalm 19 is two psalms rather awkwardly brought together. The first (vv. 1-6) extols the creative genius of God: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (19:1, NIV). The second “psalm” praises the “law of the Lord,” beginning in verse 7: “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul.” The law, for the psalmist, is equally telling of the glory of God as are the manifold works of creation. Both creation and commandment offer the same declaration: God is a God of glory and majesty. Yet the first, while speaking to the presence and existence of a transcendent God, says nothing about the will of God — a deficiency addressed in the second “psalm.” So, this psalm is a paean of praise for the revelation of God in the two places Israel understood God to be revealed: creation and revelation (indicated by various synonyms in vv. 7-9). Israel understood these arenas of God’s revelation to be complementary, not mutually exclusive. Later tradition would refer to these arenas as “natural theology” and “revealed theology”; to the theologians of ancient Israel, there was simply “theology.” The psalm concludes with the oft-cited prayer: “Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable to you, O Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer.”
1 Corinthians 1:18-25
What Is One Possible Approach to the Text?
Finding God. The preacher might pair a Psalm 19 reading with this epistle text, and, following up on the notion that one can discover God in the natural world and in the written Word, the point can be made that God, however God might be found, will not be found through “human wisdom.” Rational arguments and philosophizing may be interesting and even instructive, but such discussions will not lead us into a conviction of God’s reality or to an experience of God’s presence. An experiential knowledge of God comes not through human wisdom, but through what many would call foolishness, the foolishness of faith and the “foolishness” of the cross. Indeed, God’s final revelatory act is not the creation of majestic mountains or a roaring ocean, not even the Word of God inscribed by ancient prophets, but the living Word, Jesus Christ.
What Does the Text Say?
Here, Paul introduces the paradoxical nature of the cross. It is arguably a symbol of shame, death and despair, and would therefore be folly to adopt it as a metaphor for victory and glory. Yet, it is by means of this very folly that God’s wisdom is revealed to those “who are being saved,” and hidden to those “who are perishing.” This takes Paul to a discussion of the wisdom of the world vis-à-vis the wisdom of God — a discussion in which he argues that one cannot know God by simply applying the force of human wisdom. What appears as foolishness is divine wisdom, and what is considered wisdom is foolishness to God. The Greeks demand wisdom — an approach to the ineffable that is intellectually cogent and philosophically sound. They want a God of intellectual respectability. The Jews demand “signs,” having been a people not only of the Word, but a people who have come to expect — since the cloud and the fire of the wilderness — that God will provide signal markers along the way. Paul says that the sign they’re looking for is the sign of the cross, but admits that for the Greeks a deity who dies is foolish, and for the Jews, the cross as a symbol of messianic intervention is ridiculous — a stumbling block for both Jews and Greeks too big to overcome. Yet the proclamation of this “foolishness” is precisely the task of the preacher. After all, “God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.”
John 2:13-22
What Is One Possible Approach to the Text?
The Angry Jesus. You might show some well-known images of Jesus from a variety of periods in art history. From these images we have developed our own personal impression of what Jesus might have looked like. We probably don’t think of him with an angry expression on his face, but with something more akin to a beatific glow. This view is dispelled in part in this familiar story — one that appears in all the gospels. More superficial interpretations of its meaning have led some pastors to forbid bake sales and raffles. But what Jesus does here in the temple is not about the temple really. Jesus is angry and for good reason. He’s irritated by evidence that the merchants have turned what is holy into something profane. They’ve taken the house of God, a place of prayer and worship, and altered its essential identity. The sermon then can be about the creation of the holy and protecting the holy. When we worship, be it in a rented room or a purpose-built sanctuary, we are creating holy space. But beyond that, the sermon can also drift to other “temples.” See Paul’s use of the metaphor in 1 Corinthians. We have a responsibility to keep our “temples” holy, and not to violate the “temples” of others.
What Does the Text Say?
The story of the cleansing of the temple is one of the few events in the life of Christ that is recorded by all four gospels. In John, however, unlike the synoptic gospels, the account is inserted at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry rather than during the Passion Week itself. The synoptic chronology is more likely. Jesus’ behavior here, had it occurred right out of the chute, would have caused the authorities to shut him down immediately. As it was, they were ready to toss Jesus off a cliff in Nazareth just because they didn’t like the way he read Scripture. What’s more, in the synoptics, Jesus appears only to be concerned that a lot of cheating is going on. After all, the exchange of money from foreign to temple currency was necessary so that people could buy the sacrificial animals they needed during Passover. But in John, Jesus’ ire seems to target the commercial activity itself, a truly radical position. So, he improvises, and drives “all of them out of the temple.” The authorities, of course, are furious, and ask for a sign that might legitimize what he has just done. Jesus replies with an enigma which, of course, they don’t understand, and later will misinterpret.
Our God is a merciful God, showing steadfast love to those who keep God’s commandments. May God’s law bring joy to your heart, may God’s word give you strength, and may God’s Son show you how to walk faithfully in the path of discipleship. Amen.
Leader: The ninth commandment God gave his people through Moses is this:
People: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16).
Leader: O God, we thank you for the gift of our minds,
People: for the gift of speech that enables us to share our thoughts with others,
Leader: for the gift of time to decide when to speak and when to keep silent,
People: and for the gift of your Spirit to inform or challenge our decisions.
Leader: We confess with penitence, O God, the great harm that can be done, the great harm we have done, by misusing the power of speech.
People: We recall the words of the apostle James about the untamed tongue, “a restless evil, full of deadly poison” (James 3:8).
Leader: We would probably not bear false witness in a court of law;
People: being under oath, we might not dare to tell less than “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
Leader: But the truth can be complex, Holy One.
People: When Pilate wondered aloud, “What is truth?” he seemed honestly perplexed.
Leader: And sometimes the truth can hurt, needlessly,
People: so that keeping silence may be the fairer, the more merciful course.
Leader: O God, we pray for self-restraint when tempted to disparage our neighbors in idle criticism or slanderous gossip,
People: and we pray for courage to challenge rumors and rumor mongers on behalf of their intended victims.
Leader: Restrain us from ever telling a racist joke
People: or condoning one by laughing at it.
Leader: Help us to regard truth and fairness more highly than popularity,
People: but teach us also how to stand for fairness and truth without self-righteousness.
Leader: Guide us, awesome God, in keeping our speech simple and our silence thoughtful.
People: Keep us engaged, resolutely, in the quest of truth,
Leader: but remind us also that, in the words of your servant, Paul, we see only “through a glass, darkly,”
People: so that we shall be making many grievous errors in the pursuit of truth.
Leader: In our quest of truth, let us cling to your Son, who alone could say,
People: “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6).
Leader: For this is the ninth commandment you gave your people through Moses,
People: a commandment that your Son reaffirmed and obeyed:
Leader: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
People: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Amen.
One: Doors open. Hearts ready, God beckons.
All: Looking for a center point to life, for a union of all the scattered and torn edges.
One: May your soul find communion here.
All: Searching for honesty, for a truth spoken in love.
One: May your faith be challenged here.
All: Looking for a place to offer your time and talents.
One: May your spirit enrich this community.
All: Searching for joy to blossom and hope to grow.
One: May our songs reach the heavens, touch our hearts and spread love into the world.
Hymns
This Is the Day of Light
When I Survey the Wondrous Cross
I Sing the Mighty Power of God
Worship and Praise*
Abide (Williams, Keyes)
Ancient of Days (CityAlight)
You’ve Already Won (Barnard, Fowler)
*For licensing and permission to reprint or display these songs on screen, go to ccli.com. The worship and praise songs suggested by Homiletics can be found in most cases on Google by using the title as the search term.
on Exodus 20:1-17
If the Ten Commandments constitute nitpicking, then one must admit that these are some pretty big nits. Here in these 10 “words,” or “things” as they are called in Hebrew, are some of the primary tenets of Israelite religion. The command to worship only YHWH, the command to use no iconographic symbolism to represent YHWH, and the command to honor one’s elders outline major features of Israel’s religion: monolatry, aniconism and the familial covenantal ties that bound Israelites to God and to one another. Although there are many other proscriptions elsewhere in the law that were vital to the practice of Israelite religion, these 10 are a good introduction to the heart and soul of OT faith and practice.
The first commandment is more than just an instruction to worship only YHWH. It also encapsulates the whole of covenant theology with regard to the relationship between YHWH and the nation by answering the unasked questions, “Why should we worship YHWH instead of worshiping other gods? Why shouldn’t we worship other gods as well?” To this, the first commandment gives the bedrock answer, “I am YHWH your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery (therefore), you shall have no other gods before me.” In other words, the nation’s worship of YHWH is based on the fact that YHWH is the God who saved them. YHWH and no other has performed mighty acts for them in the past and can be counted on to do so in the future, while no other god can or will do for Israel what YHWH does.
The second commandment instructs the Israelites not to make images that would then become the focus of worship. In Exodus, the instruction appears only to prohibit the making of images of other deities, so that it is essentially an expansion on the first commandment. However, in Deuteronomy 4:16, Israel is instructed not to make images of YHWH either. In other words, YHWH does not want to be worshiped using cultic statuary (a common worship form used by virtually all of Israel’s neighbors). Not only are they not to worship other gods using idols, but they are not to use images to worship YHWH either, because, as Deuteronomy 4:15 says, “You saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire.” The basic teaching is that YHWH has no corporeal form. This allowed Israel to make its most unusual theological claim — namely, that YHWH is neither male nor female, young nor old, human nor nonhuman in appearance. YHWH is the young warrior king and the ancient of days. YHWH is mother AND father, force of nature and personal companion. YHWH is all things. YHWH has all power. Images limit the imagination concerning the nature of God; therefore, one should never enshrine any single image of YHWH, for to do this would diminish the other aspects of YHWH’s nature and thus diminish YHWH’s perceived power.
Many interpreters focus on the coda to the second commandment as typical of OT religion. They note that the text says that God punishes children for the iniquity of their parents to the third and fourth generation. However, the text goes on to say that God rewards the children of faithful parents to the 1,000th generation! It is a pity that more readers do not go on to note that God’s mercy is considerably more long-lasting than God’s anger.
The third commandment warns against the frivolous use of God’s name in the making of oaths and promises. This is based on the view that when an oath is pronounced, the speaker in effect makes the results of the oath real. If God is called to witness an oath, then, God will make it real, and dire are the consequences for those who do not take this seriously.
The fourth commandment instructs Israelites to establish the seventh day of the week as a day of rest and devotion to God. Here in Exodus, the rationale behind observing the Sabbath day is the fact that God rested after the act of creation. Observing the Sabbath and instructing all the living souls in one’s household to do so also (even the animals), is a way of emulating God’s acts in creation. Deuteronomy, however, gives another rationale. In Deuteronomy 5:15, the nation is to rest on the Sabbath, and allow rest for the persons and animals that toil within Israel because no one should go through life like a slave. “Remember,” Deuteronomy says, “that you were a slave in the land of Egypt.” The rationale for the observance of Sabbath here is more humanistically phrased than it is in Exodus.
Up until this point, the commandments have been focused on how one is to worship God. Now they turn to how one is to relate to others in the covenant community. Elders are to be honored, and murder, adultery, theft, false witness and greed are to be abolished. One should remember, however, with regard to adultery, that only women were required to be monogamous. Men were allowed to have as many wives as they were financially able to support. This means that adultery, if one is a man, is a term that applies only to sleeping with a woman who is already married to another man. If a married man sleeps with a single woman, this is not adultery. It is fornication and could be remedied by marrying the woman in question. This one case illustrates the obvious — namely, that there were many more laws than just these 10 that governed Israelite life.
After careful reading and study, rabbinic authorities discerned that there are 613 commandments in the Hebrew Bible. These are called in rabbinic parlance the taryag commands, a name derived from the letters used to spell the number 613 (tav = 400, resh = 200, yod = 10, and gimel = 3). Thus, the Ten Commandments are only representatives of the two foundational categories of Israelite law, namely, correct worship of God and correct relationships with others. To assume that all of Israelite culture is summed up in only these 10 is to mistake the scope of Israelite law. All of life under the covenant — economic life, dietary customs, clothing customs, marriage customs, inheritance rights, legal issues, medical treatments, etc. — were to adhere to God’s instructions. The whole of Torah applied to the whole of human life and operated under two basic rubrics: love of God and love of neighbor.
AT A GLANCE
Can dishonesty lead to high creativity? Yes, if you believe the hotshot Harvard University professor and author whose published articles were retracted by three respected academic journals following allegations of fraud. But the Bible has a simple rule to safeguard us from getting caught in traps of deceit and treachery.
RELATED TITLES IN THIS TOPIC
COMMANDMENTS
HONESTY
LIES
ANIMATING ILLUSTRATIONS
A lie is an abomination unto the Lord, and a very present help in time of trouble.
—Adlai Stevenson
[It’s uncomfortable talking about a clergyman who made his living, in part, by lying, but that’s the story of Mason Locke Weems. Born in Maryland in 1759, he was ordained an Episcopal priest, but made his living in part as a traveling bookseller. His superpower — like some unscrupulous journalists today — was finding out what people wanted to hear and giving it to them. Weems’ literary niche was writing historical vignettes and presenting them as fact — even though they weren’t.]
Weems traveled around in a Jersey wagon on dusty rural roads for more than 30 years, peddling books and playing the fiddle during the long rides. He had long curls and wore a clerical coat with a quill pen stuck in his hat and an inkhorn hanging from his lapel.
It was Weems who invented the famous story about George Washington cutting down his father’s cherry tree with a hatchet, and then admitting that it was made-up. Weems included that story in his mostly fictional biography The Life and Memorable Actions of George Washington (1800).
Washington’s biography wasn’t the only one in which Weems took liberties with the truth. He also wrote about Francis Marion, a military officer who served in the American Revolutionary War. Using the work of Marion’s friend, General Peter Horry, he set about writing a book. Horry was shocked with the result. He wrote Weems:
“I requested you would so far alter the work as to make it read grammatically, but entertained not the least idea of what has happened … You have carved and mutilated it with so many erroneous statements [that] your embellishments, observation and remarks, must necessarily be erroneous as proceeding from false grounds … Can you suppose I can be pleased with reading particulars of Marion and myself, when I know such never existed?”
But the public loved Weems’ works. The Life of Washington for decades outsold every book in the United States except the Bible.
—Garrison Keillor, The Writer’s Almanac for October 11, 2016.
https://www.writersalmanac.org/index.html%3Fp=8815.html.
Retrieved September 28, 2023.
No one enjoys being wrong. It’s an unpleasant emotional experience for all of us. The question is how do we respond when it turns out we were wrong. …
Some of us admit we were wrong and say, “Oops, you were right. …”
Some of us kind of imply we were wrong, but we don’t do so explicitly or in a way that is satisfying to the other person. …
But some people refuse to admit they’re wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence: “They let him go because of DNA evidence and another dude’s confession? Ridiculous! That’s the guy! I saw him!”
The first two examples are probably familiar to most of us, because those are typical responses to being wrong. We accept responsibility fully or partially (sometimes, very, very partially), but we don’t push back against the actual facts. …
But what about when a person does push back against the facts, when they simply cannot admit they were wrong in any circumstance? What in their psychological makeup makes it impossible for them to admit they were wrong, even when it is obvious they were? And why does this happen so repetitively — why do they never admit they were wrong?
The answer is related to their ego, their very sense-of-self. Some people have such a fragile ego, such brittle self-esteem, such a weak “psychological constitution,” that admitting they made a mistake or that they were wrong is fundamentally too threatening for their egos to tolerate. Accepting they were wrong, absorbing that reality, would be so psychologically shattering, their defense mechanisms do something remarkable to avoid doing so — they literally distort their perception of reality to make it (reality) less threatening. Their defense mechanisms protect their fragile ego by changing the very facts in their mind, so they are no longer wrong or culpable. …
People who repeatedly exhibit this kind of behavior are, by definition, psychologically fragile. However, that assessment is often difficult for people to accept, because to the outside world, they look as if they’re confidently standing their ground and not backing down, things we associate with strength. But psychological rigidity is not a sign of strength, it is an indication of weakness. These people are not choosing to stand their ground; they’re compelled to do so in order to protect their fragile egos.
—Guy Winch, “Why Certain People Will Never Admit They Were Wrong,” Psychology Today, November 3, 2018.
This next request may sound strange to you, especially coming from a pastor who is supposed to be encouraging people to “avoid the near occasions of sin.” But I am asking this of you: as my Alzheimer’s progresses, please lie to me — especially if the truth upsets me. Yes, I want you to know that you have my permission to lie. If it makes you feel better, call it “therapeutic fibbing.” Trust me, God will understand. …
Validate my feelings versus correcting me with facts. If I say that I had salmon for breakfast, don’t try and set me straight with the truth: “Now Cynthia, you know that you didn’t have salmon for breakfast. You had oatmeal.” If I say that I had salmon, just let it be! Does my eating salmon or oatmeal for breakfast really matter in the grand scheme of things? Is it really worth arguing about and upsetting me?
Over the years I have seen far too many caregivers correcting persons living with Alzheimer’s (or a related dementia) by arguing over details and facts, “No Dad, you didn’t work in a bank. You worked in a grocery store.” These truth tellers argue that they are just setting the record straight: that is, that Cynthia didn’t have salmon for breakfast and not to correct her is akin to being part of Cynthia’s lie. I have watched these interactions in horror. You are never going to win and will only succeed in making that person feel worse — and for what? So that you can be right? …
Meet me in my reality, even as it changes. “I know you love salmon, Cynthia. I bet you could eat it every day.” Instead of a confrontation about what I did or did not have for breakfast, we could have a conversation. … I don’t need to be right, just loved.
Please lie to me to protect my heart from aching. When I ask about Aunt Betty, don’t respond by saying: “I’ve told you a hundred times that she’s dead!” That’s cruel. I am asking about Aunt Betty, because I love her and maybe I’m missing her in that moment. …
Just remember the golden rule. Treat me with kindness, dignity, and respect, and we should get along just fine. For my happiness, peace, and comfort, and especially in times of great distress, please lie to me.
—Cynthia Huling Hummel, “Please Lie to Me,” Bearings Online, February 28, 2019. Dr. Hummel is a retired Presbyterian minister who was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in 2016.
https://collegevilleinstitute.org/bearings/please-lie-to-me/.
Retrieved September 28, 2023.
The Cardiff Giant was conceived by George Hull, a cigar manufacturer and atheist, after he’d spent an evening arguing with a fundamentalist minister. Hull remembered Genesis 6:4 and its reference to “giants in the earth” and wondered if people like the minister could be convinced that a large, stone statue found in the ground was actually a “petrified giant.” He decided to find out.
Hull had a statue carved in secret and used himself as the model. It was over 10 feet long when finished. Hull washed it with sulfuric acid and pounded it with darning needles to make it look old, then had it buried on a friend’s farm in Cardiff, N.Y. It cost $2,600, but Hull figured that enough people would want to see it for him to make a profit.
A year later, on October 16, 1869, workers hired to dig a well on the Cardiff farm instead dug up the giant. The statue was immediately denounced as a fraud but, as Hull had guessed, it was fervently defended by Christian fundamentalists and also by civic boosters in whatever city happened to be exhibiting it. The debate raged long enough for Hull to make $30,000 charging admission at 50 cents a peek. …
The Cardiff Giant was so successful at making money that P.T. Barnum … had his own giant sculpted — a fake of the fake — and given its own tour. It was only when both giants appeared in New York City at the same time that the hoax was finally acknowledged by everyone. …
—“Cardiff Giant,” RoadsideAmerica.com.
https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2172.
Retrieved September 28, 2023.
CHILDREN'S SERMON
Your prop is a small pad of sticky notes. Ask the children if they know what sticky notes are for. Tell them that you use them to remind yourself to do something. You write a note, and then you stick it somewhere so that you will see the note and be reminded to buy milk, keep an appointment or take out the garbage, for example. Write something on a sticky note to demonstrate. Some people put sticky notes on their foreheads, and then when they stand in front of the bathroom mirror, they see the note and are reminded that they need to do something important. Demonstrate. What kinds of things do children need to remember? To take homework to school, make their beds, walk the dog, brush their teeth, etc. Do we have a hard time remembering to be respectful? To be honest? To be kind? To give mom and dad a kiss before going to school? To hug your brother and sister when they are crying? To worship God? To say, “Thank you”? To say, “Please”? To be fair? The Bible helps us remember the important things in life. Some of these things are in the Ten Commandments. If you have bookmarks with the Ten Commandments printed on them, give them to the kids. Lest you forget to do this, write a sticky note and post it on your Bible! You could also have sticky notes prepared with some action written on them, each note with a different action — like one of those mentioned above. Then ask the children to come to you one-by-one and plant a sticky note right on their foreheads and send them back to their parents. Perhaps you could close with a prayer: “Dear God, thank you for loving us enough to give us guidelines on how to live our lives. Help us to remember. Amen.”
Start today. Cancel any time.
Act now and, for just $7.99 a month or $69.95 a year, you’ll receive a full year of this valuable sermon preparation resource.
Our convenient, continuous-subscription program ensures you'll never miss out on the inspiration you need, when you need it.
You’re never obligated to continue. Naturally, you may cancel at any time for any reason, no questions asked.