Just what is and isn't lying? There's no debate that lying is wrong, but in the world it gets a bit foggy to determine that what is presented to give a wrong impression is always wrong, sometimes alright, maybe even a virtue. Which of these cases is a lie, hypocrisy, neither, or a positive presentation? These are not in a poll function because they are hard to describe in just a few words.
1) A man is 10 minutes late for work because he hit the snooze button twice, and then he couldn't drive as fast as he wanted in rush hour traffic and he sees a stalled car in the opposite lane from which he is
going. He walks in to see his boss with a scowl, and says, "Sorry-- lots of traffic and a stalled car were on the highway."
2) [I know it's an oft-repeated situation] A man's wife puts on her new dress and asks him if she looks fat in it. He really thinks she does look "plump" in it because she looks plump no matter what she wears. He says, "Honey, it fits you well and you look wonderful." But she presses the question of fat, so he says, "Fat?-- no, you
look the same as in anything else."
3) A theft of some dynamite has led to a neo-nazi, who admits his gang is going to blow up a public building. Police officers question him all night, but he won't disclose the location. After dawn, he starts asking what time it is, and the officers deduce he may be asking because of the time of the bombing. He starts asking if it is 8 yet, and though it is before 8 they tell him it is 10 after, and then he admits they are bombing a particular elementary school because it is to be integrated beginning that day. The police arrange to evacuate the school and the bomb squad does a successful search for the bomb before it detonates. This is from a Dragnet episode and it's not a question of whether the police lied, but whether this is a case in which lying is justified.
First I need to say that Psalms 34:13 and 1 Peter 3:10 show that no guile should be found on our lips. Guile according to the dictionary is to show sly or cunning intelligence. This doesn't mean say stupid things or be blunt all the time. We are told throughout scripture to carefully control what we say and weigh our words. Still, the first two examples are clearly using guile to deceive. Those two are acts of sin.
The third example is just fine, that neo-Nazi is an enemy to us and deceiving him to defeat him is perfectly alright. This is because we have examples of the saints deceiving enemies in the Old Testament. Just look at David feigning insanity in 1 Samuel 21:13 or Joshua's military battle in Joshua 8.
I don't know if any law enforcement would do this, but in the case of the neo-nazi intending to bomb the school, suppose they had not yet apprehended the guy and they sent a policewoman to come on to him and pretend she supports and is interested in his activities, maybe to the point of having sex with him in attempt to get him to reveal more. Would that be justified to prevent a mass murder?
"Look, I am sending you out as sheep among wolves. So be as shrewd as snakes and harmless as doves."
[Matthew 10:16 NLT]
Did Jesus mean what He said?
What exactly did He mean?
I think that it has something to do with:
Jesus replied, "'You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments."
[Matthew 22:37-40 NLT]
No, because good interrogations that have the best results avoid torture. I know that from a college class that I took that touched on interrogation techniques.
We have examples of the saints deceiving enemies in the Old Testament. Just look at David feigning insanity in 1 Samuel 21:13 or Joshua's military battle in Joshua 8.
We have holy spies at all in the Conquest of Canaan. We have a holy assassin in Ehud in the book of Judges. God blessed Samson when he killed his enemies in a kind of Kamikaze attack. However, never does scripture condone having sex to get information.
Also, common sense tells you that undercover cops should not get romantic with the enemy.
Or what if it's like a situation in Nazi Germany where you're hiding Jews and the police come to search your place, demanding to know where the Jews are (as happened to Corrie Ten Boom)
Undercover vice cops often have sex with the enemy to preserve their cover, and will engage in what appears to the enemy as a "romantic" relationship (as well as have sex with the enemy, if necessary for the operation).
Interestingly, Corrie's sister refused to lie. Upon being asked if they were hiding Jews, she said "yes" and trusted the ordained will of God for telling the truth. She died in the concentration camp.
The question I ask myself is: "Do I trust myself to the sovereign will of God or am I encouraged by God to survive by any means necessary." Ultimately it is the age old philosophical question: "Do the ends justify the means?"
How about the use of selected facts? When you are required to give an explanation to someone-- spouse, supervisor, parent, teacher, police-- you tell the truth, but avoid what implicates yourself, in addition to using word choices or emphases meant to lighten how much fault is yours? ... "The woman gave me, and I did eat" ... "The serpent beguiled me and I did eat." Lying? Hypocrisy? Truth? Feeble exoneration?
Don’t share your plans with the devil, with those who serve him, or with those who oppose God.
“Be wise as serpents, and as innocent as doves.”
“Don’t let the left hand know what the right hand is doing.”
“Don’t give what is sacred to dogs; don’t cast your pearls before swine.”