# data[].attributes.body
In Thursday’s discussion on “The Poison of Subjectivism,” the class brought up the controversial topic of the justification of sins like lying and killing when done in the name of good. In other words, the end justifies the means. This immediately triggered my memory of reading The Hiding Place by Corrie Ten Boom.
If you are not familiar with the book, it is a Holocaust memoir of a Gentile family who helped Jews escape from the Nazis. She and her sister end up being sent to a concentration camp as a result. Corrie frequently describes her older sister, Betsie, as being more spiritually minded than she, and a contrast she draws is their different opinions on lies. Betsie is strongly convicted to not tell a lie, even to protect the Jews. When asked where they were hiding, she told them “under the table.” The Jews were hiding in a cellar under the floorboards under the table, so she was not technically telling a lie. Corrie does not share this conviction, and frequently lies and creates forgeries to save the lives of those she harbors. In both cases, God protects the Jews from the soldiers.
This begs the question: is the lie justified? Should it be celebrated? Additionally, did God need someone to lie in order to accomplish His purposes? I think it is important to consider the theoretical implications of deciding in one’s own mind that certain sins are not sins when done in the name of justice or mercy or “goodness.” At what point are we succumbing to a more subtle form of subjectivism and playing god?
In this article, John MacArthur gives the additional example of Rahab, the woman who hid the spies in the Old Testament. I think it tied in nicely with the story of the Ten Booms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You're likely familiar with the concept of a "white lie." It's any lie that, due to mitigating circumstances, honorable intentions, or limited scope, is considered negligible. Plenty of people believe that lying can be acceptable and even justifiable in certain circumstances. They argue that noble motives and the need of the moment can erase the sinful weight of the lie.

Pivotal to their argument is the story of Rahab.

And the king of Jericho sent word to Rahab, saying, "Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the land." But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them, and she said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. It came about when it was time to shut the gate at dark, that the men went out; I do not know where the men went. Pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them." But she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them in the stalks of flax which she had laid in order on the roof. (Joshua 2:3-6)

By lying, Rahab prevented the capture of the Israelite spies and helped pave the way for Israel to conquer Jericho. Remarkably, Rahab is the only Gentile honored for her faith in Hebrews 11. By commending her faith, is Scripture also condoning her methods? Was hers the rarest of circumstances in which lying was the right thing to do?

Scholars and ethicists have argued over that question, going all the way back to the earliest rabbinical history. Let's face it, it's not an easy question.

Scripture clearly teaches that "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who deal truthfully are His delight" (Proverbs 12:22 NKJV). God Himself cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29), and therefore He cannot condone or sanction a lie.

On the other hand, some argue that because of the circumstances, Rahab's statement to her interrogators was not technically a "lie," but a military feint - a legitimate stratagem designed to trick or outwit the enemy in warfare. Others argue that any lie is acceptable if the motive serves a greater good. Such a situational approach to ethics is fraught with very serious problems.

I see no need to try to justify Rahab's lie. Nor do I see any biblical basis for defending her deception as righteous. God certainly could have saved Rahab and the spies without her lie.

There is an interesting story that Corrie Ten Boom told about some people in Germany who were hiding Jews from the Nazis. They had nailed the legs of their kitchen table to the floor. Beneath the table was a carpet concealing a trap door. Lifting the table would open the door to a secret basement where the Jews were hiding.

When the Nazis came to the door they would accuse the people of protecting Jews in their home and demand to know where they were hiding. The owner of the house would simply reply, "They're under the table." The Nazis would mock them and leave the house thinking they were crazy. The point, of course, is that they told the truth because the Jews were under the table. They just didn't reveal how far beneath the table they were hiding.

I don't believe you have to say everything that could be said at every point. There is some virtue in keeping your mouth shut.

I have experienced a similar situation in my own life. Many years ago I smuggled Bibles and other books into China with my wife and children. The church there had asked if we would bring some Christian literature, including some of my books, that had been translated in Chinese. We all had those books tucked away among our clothes in our suitcases.

Our strategy was simple. We told our children to proceed through customs as usual. If the authorities didn't ask us anything, then we didn't need to say anything. We also made it clear that if any of them were asked if they had any books, they were to tell the truth without hesitation.

In the purposes of God, the Chinese authorities didn't stop us. We went straight through without any questions and made it safely to the designated drop-off location and delivered our precious cargo.

God works in amazing ways and always achieves His sovereign purposes. My love for the truth and convictions concerning it remain unchanged-we should honor truth regardless of the situation.

Still, the lie was never the point of Rahab's story. There is no need for clever rationalization to justify her lie. Scripture never commends her lie. Rahab is never applauded for her ethics. Rahab is a positive example of faith. In fact, Hebrews 11:31 explicitly commends Rahab's hospitality to the spies and nothing more.

In the moment she lied, her faith was newborn, weak, and in need of nurture and growth. Her knowledge of Israel's God was meager. It is likely that she had never met worshippers of God before that night. She probably had no understanding of the value He put on truthfulness.

On top of that, she was a product of a corrupt culture where ethics were virtually nonexistent. Lying was a way of life in her society-and especially in her profession. The way she responded is just what we might expect from a brand-new believer under those circumstances.

The point is that Rahab's faith, undeveloped as it was, immediately bore the fruit of action. She "welcomed the spies in peace" (Hebrews 11:31)-meaning that she not only hid them, but also implicitly embraced their cause. She thereby entrusted her whole future to their God. And the proof of her faith was not the lie she told, but the fact that "she received the messengers and sent them out by another way" (James 2:25)-when she might have handed them over for money instead. The lie is not what made her actions commendable. It was the fact that she turned down an easy reward, put herself in jeopardy, and thus staked everything on the God of Israel. Nothing but faith could have made such a dramatic, instantaneous change in the character of such a woman.

(Adapted from Twelve Extraordinary Women)

You may reproduce this Grace to You content for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Grace to You's Copyright Policy ( http://www.gty.org/about#copyright).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You're likely familiar with the concept of a "white lie." It's any lie that, due to mitigating circumstances, honorable intentions, or limited scope, is considered negligible. Plenty of people believe that lying can be acceptable and even justifiable in certain circumstances.

# data[].attributes.body
This BBC article talks about Orwellian predictions for the future of the society. If you haven't read the book, it deals with a dystopian society that deals with Marxism, surveillance, crowd manipulation, and the loss of the individual. One of the major themes that connects to the postmodern worldview we have been discussing in class is the manipulation of language. The government takes control of language, eliminating vocabulary to narrow the minds of the citizens. How does this relate to the postmodern idea that language is simply a construct? What are the dangers of the government or society manipulating the evolution of language? In what ways is this already happening?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Audiences around the world are re-reading George Orwell’s 1984, which is ‘a handbook for difficult times’, writes Jean Seaton.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading the following article, I wonder how much Marxism has influenced modern movements. We must also consider, in light of reading the Communist Manifesto, how much of this is directly from Marx himself and how much is part of the larger "Marxist theory." The co-founders of BLM describe themselves as "trained Marxists." What do you think that means? What kind of Marxist ideals does BLM support (without saying whether you agree or disagree with BLM)? Can the type of racism we see in America today be classified as a class struggle? Is BLM economically motivated at its core (as Marx might argue), is it purely vying for social justice, or are the two purposes inextricable?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Trump said Wednesday that Black Lives Matter is "a Marxist group that is not looking for good things for our country."

Trump said in a "Fox & Friends" interview that he questions the "air of great respectability" for Black Lives Matter after two months of national unrest over the killing of George Floyd by Minnesota police.

"Black Lives Matter, when did it start? Marching down streets screaming, 'Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon.' They were talking about policemen," Trump said. "So all of a sudden, this has taken on this air of great respectability. Well, how does it start there? It's a Marxist group."

Black Lives Matter is both a diverse social movement and the name of a national organization - whose leaders include co-founder Patrisse Cullors, who described herself and fellow co-founder Alicia Garza as "trained Marxists."

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump's attorneys, visited the White House last month and told reporters while departing that Black Lives Matter is a "Marxist organization" that was "planning to destroy the police for three years."

Trump also told "Fox & Friends" he disapproves of the role of Antifa, or so-called "anti-fascist," activists who have clashed with authorities in Portland and other cities since Floyd's death in May.

Trump slammed a remark from Rep. Jerry Nadler (R-NY) that Antifa violence was "a myth."

"This isn't being naive. This is being untruthful. These are lying people, these are untruthful people," Trump said.

He added that he believes "you have Democrats funding them. They say [George] Soros and they say other people - who knows."

Trump did not provide specific information about the claim that Democrats fund Antifa groups. But Soros, the left-wing billionaire investor, said last month that he would distribute $150 million to "black-led justice organizations that helped to create and now sustain the momentum" of recent protests.

Trump added in the Fox News interview about Antifa: "You see them standing there with weapons that are expensive, with signs that were made - literally they have signs, some of their little marches, they have signs that were made in a high-class printing shop. I like the signs that are made in a basement, they mean a lot more."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump slams Black Lives Matter organization as 'Marxist group'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Trump said Wednesday that Black Lives Matter is "a Marxist group that is not looking for good things for our country." Trump said in a "Fox & Friends" interview that he questions the "air of great respectability" for Black Lives Matter after two months of national unrest over the killing of George Floyd by Minnesota police.

# data[].attributes.body
This meme represents some of Freud’s ideas about religion, God, humanity, and even his personal life. His fixation on the parent-child relationship leads his audience to question his own relationship with his father, which was not exactly ideal.
In his work, The Future of an Illusion, Freud argues that mankind created God and religion out of his own selfish desires for security. Nature was too great and lofty a force, so man personified it. This personification allowed for a God that could be understood, placated, and manipulated.
Freud frequently relates our idea of God to a father figure because, like God, he provides security for his child. A father also strikes fear in the heart of a child because of his strength and fortitude. “God” was convenient for man to make up because He became the moral standard, the punisher of wrong, the rewarder of right, the guide of the afterlife, and the protection against Nature that man desperately desired. The idea of God also provides an easy explanation for the questions that science cannot answer, such as “Why are we here?,” “Where did we come from?,” and “Where are we going after we die?”

I wonder, how does this relate to the Christian idea of God as Father? We perceived Him as Father because He is also the creator and sustainer, but Freud says that we created God because it helps us cope when we act “as if” there is a higher power that orders our lives.

# data[].attributes.body
This meme demonstrates an existential influence, especially as described by Jean-Paul Sartre. In his "Existentialism is a Humanism," he discusses the anguish that complete freedom of choice creates in every human being.
Without a God or higher power to give life meaning and a moral code, man must take full responsibility for his actions. Each action he takes helps shape the ideal image of what Man should be for all of mankind.
The existential moral code involves asking oneself if the way one chooses to live is a desirable lifestyle for all. In other words, if everyone were to act the same as oneself, would the world be a place worth living in?
According to existentialism, freedom is a burden. No one can tell a man what to do, but no one will take the blame for him either. The weight of this accountability is heavy, and causes a sort of "anguish" to each person as they go about their lives. Man is "not only the individual that he chooses to be, but also a legislator choosing at the same time what humanity as a whole should be" (Sartre 25). That is quite frightening. What person believes themself worthy of making these sorts of decisions for all of mankind?

It seems that raccoons are not exempt from this contemplation either.