Why are we putting dishonesty on a pedestal?
‘What is Truth?’ These three iconic words, Pilate’s final question to Jesus on Good Friday, have ricocheted down through the millennia, and they still challenge us today. But whereas they have been accompanied throughout most of this period by a moral authority which has been provided by faith, that challenge is now taking on a much greater significance.
At all levels — in geopolitics, in national democracies and even in the arts — we are seeing dishonesty paraded as something acceptable, something intriguing. For the latter, consider the highly popular ‘Traitors’ series on BBC television, in which goodness is shown as something naïve whereas dishonesty is presented as fair competition.
But at a much more serious level, we see it in holocaust and genocide denial, in Donald Trump’s refusal to accept his myriad of indictments, and in Putin's denial of invading Ukraine two years ago. Dishonesty and exaggerated claims are commonplace on social media and even work their way into corporate and public bodies such as we've recently seen in the sub-postmasters’ scandal.
So in this commentary, we're asking whether this is an inevitable consequence of an ever more secular society, and how we can re-establish a proper respect for truth.
Last Saturday, I attended the annual gathering of area deans and lay chairs of the Diocese of Oxford. Bishop Steven opened our discussions with a clear distinction between two alternative perspectives for humanity: one purely secular, and the other governed and created by unconditional love.
The finale of the ‘Traitors’ series was broadcast the night before, and in its final scene the last three competitors standing were asked to vote either for one further banishment or for the game's closure with all three still there. If they were all good, they would share the prize fund equally, but if there was one ‘traitor’ he/she would walk off with all the money.
Of course, the one remaining ‘traitor’ voted for closure, as he stood to receive the full prize fund: whereas both of the good players requested one further banishment. It should have been clear that the traitor (who of course already knew his identity) would have voted for closure: but what came across was a blissful ignorance of deviousness as the deciding vote was cast in his favour.
Bishop Steven set out the wholly secular and atheist path which could lie ahead for humanity. He described it as impersonal and cold, in a purely mechanical but inexplicable universe, where humans see themselves as the result of pure chance. In such a world, there is no ultimate sense of right or wrong — just matter evolving without any wider purpose. The fundamental laws of gravity, light and time would have no reason for their existence in this scenario: a complete contrast to the logic which I set out in ‘Love in Creation’, published on Share Radio on 27th June 2017.
Of course, people who are not atheists have many different perceptions of what drives our existence, but almost all would accept that unconditional love must lie behind creation: why else would it be here, if there is a conscious creator? It's certainly worth looking across the great span of different faiths to see what parallels there are between people's various understandings.
However, human political leadership today is relishing the absence of a core moral authority. Even when he was President, Donald Trump stood in front of a church in Washington with an upside-down bible trying to market his faith credentials, in spite of the fact that his conscience appeared to be distinctly ‘absent without leave’.
Reliance on truth in the real world relies on an active conscience which is nurtured by the moral guidance of faith, and by a strong legal structure capable of impartial investigation. It is the latter which is now dealing with Mr. Trump's wrongdoings, and in an international context it has recently proved its significance in investigating the South African challenge of potential genocide in Gaza.
We have to rely on the law to provide an arbiter of what is truth, and that law needs to be guided by a moral compass: in the case of Christianity, the moral compass extends as far as ‘love your enemy, pray for those who persecute you’.
In future, the international legal framework needs to play a much greater role so that it can establish the facts even when international bodies such as the UN Relief and Works Agency are challenged, as has been the case in the last few days. It is essential that the current system of national definitions is steadily softened in the years ahead, as we have argued in calling for greater democratic legitimacy for the United Nations: but that transition must be accompanied by an international legal structure which we can all trust.
However, it is that moral compass, strengthened by faith in a conscious creator, which must still underpin people's respect for truth. We must not allow ourselves to be gradually beguiled by a cultural and technical world where dishonesty is just another feature of life.
At some point in the future, science may well remove the need for faith as the spiritual world comes more clearly within our human understanding. However, the reason we are here is not pure chance: the universe is indeed groaning in creation, driven by unconditional love. We would do well to follow the guidance from the Book of Jeremiah chapter 33, where the prophet recounts God speaking to him and saying: ‘Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know’.
Gavin Oldham OBE
Share Radio