It has been fascinating to read responses to my column in WORLD magazine about the ethics of lying. The occasion for the article was Robin DiAngelo’s claim that Matt Walsh had lied to her in order to procure her participation in Walsh’s new film Am I Racist? I was asked to write the article last week before the film released and to address the ethics of lying for an ostensibly good cause. There was an online conversation unfolding before the film released as a result of DiAngelo’s statement, and many people were arguing in response that lying and deception are justified whenever waging culture war.
For my part, I never intended to say that Walsh himself had lied. He clearly denied lying, as I noted twice in my article. And it wasn’t my aim to adjudicate DiAngelo’s claim that he had. Rather, my purpose was to address the conversation I saw percolating in my social media feed. Countless people were making the case that lying is a necessary tool in the conservative arsenal and must be employed to defeat the Left. To be clear, Walsh himself wasn’t making this case, but his defenders were. And they still are.
And this was and is my chief concern. I am seeing many people on the right—including many Christians—making the case that because we are in a “culture war” against wokeness, we are justified in lying with impunity to opponents in order to expose and humiliate them. This is the claim that I was trying to target in my article. My column is not above critique, and people are totally fine to question whether I hit the target I was aiming at. But I just want to be clear what I was aiming at.
There are at least two levels to this conversation. While both of them are important, we need to be careful not to confuse them.
The first level is whether it is ever permissible to lie. This is a longstanding debate among otherwise faithful Christians. Some point to examples of lying in Scripture and argue that it is self-evident that lying is sometimes justified (e.g., Rahab and the Hebrew midwives). Others make the case that these Scriptures are routinely misinterpreted and that the Bible doesn’t actually authorize lying. I take the latter view, but my social media feed is filled with those who insist on the former.
The second level is whether it is okay to do evil so that good may come. Romans 3:8 clearly condemns those who do evil in order to achieve a noble outcome. This is not up for debate from a biblical perspective. Christians are not to engage in evil acts while fighting the good fight of faith.
While there may be some legitimate debate among Christians about the first level, there should be no debate about the second level. For the moment, let’s set aside the question of lying in cases where lives are hanging in the balance. Otherwise faithful Christians may agree to disagree about that issue. In my column, however, I aimed to show that defeating the Left does not constitute a justification for lying. Nor is it a justification for any other evil that one may contemplate. Lying is clearly condemned throughout Scripture. God never lies, and therefore neither should we. Nevertheless, many Christians are making the argument that it’s okay to lie in order to defeat the lies of our opponents on the Left.
Those who are waging “culture war” upon the premise that it must be won through the use of evil means are leading God’s people astray. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but are divinely powerful for the destruction of every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:4). This is why we don’t lie nor commit any other evil deed in service of the truth. We fight with the weapons God has given us, and God has not given us to do evil so that good may come (Rom. 3:8).
As I said above, my column is not above critique. Indeed, if I had a do-over, I would change some things based on constructive feedback I have received.* Having said that, I hope we can all agree that no one should do evil so that good may come. God has not given us a “by any means necessary” kind of an ethic. If we wish to follow in the way of Christ, it is absolutely imperative that we recognize that.
*Among the things I would change or clarify are the following:
1. I would change the title and subtitle, which read, “Is ‘owning the libs’ a justification for lying? Matt Walsh’s tactics in making his film raise real questions.” Some readers may be surprised to learn that authors often don’t write their titles. Titles are typically added after the fact by editors. Although I used the phrase “own the libs” once in the body of the essay, it wasn’t in reference to Walsh’s film. But when the phrase got moved into the title, it made it sound like I was denigrating the film as an effort to “own the libs.” To make matters worse, the subtitle read as an accusation that Matt Walsh lied simply to “own the libs.” That wasn’t my intent at all. At first, I didn’t realize how the title and subtitle had colored the way that people were reading the rest of the column. After getting some feedback about it, I asked the editors for a change in the subtitle, which they have now made. The new title and subtitle are, “How far is too far? Honoring the truth while fighting the good fight.”
2. I would change the timing of the column’s release. The occasion for the column was Robin DiAngelo’s claim that Matt Walsh had lied to her in order to procure her participation in Walsh’s film. I was asked to write the article last week before the film released and to address the ethics of lying in order to achieve a noble outcome. There was an online conversation unfolding before the film released as a result of DiAngelo’s statement, and many people were arguing that lying and deception are justified whenever waging culture war. Walsh wasn’t making that case, but his defenders were. And they still are. Nevertheless, the column’s publication on Tuesday after the film was in wide release made it sound like I was commenting on the film itself. That was unfortunate because it was not a commentary on the film, which hadn’t even been released when I was invited to write the column. If I could have a do-over, I would have the column published before the movie hit theaters instead of after.
I am grateful to Matt Walsh for taking time to give thoughtful interaction to my column. If you wish to see some of our back and forth online, you can take a look at the material below.
There have been a flood of responses to my article over the course of the day. Not surprisingly, most people are responding negatively. Some observations and responses to the criticism:
(1) Matt Walsh weighed in twice today—once responding directly to me and once making some… pic.twitter.com/KNwy6VRwy7
— Denny Burk (@DennyBurk) September 18, 2024
Hello, @MattWalshBlog. I appreciate the critical interaction. A few quick thoughts about your video:
1. When I wrote the column, I did not believe there were grounds for accusing you of lying. I did not take DiAngelo’s word for it that you had lied, and it wasn’t my intention to… https://t.co/aqX46aZHd6
— Denny Burk (@DennyBurk) September 19, 2024
