‘Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair.’

A.D. Ryan, Author

What is truth? This question has echoed throughout the past two thousand years since Pontius Pilate put the question to Jesus.

Largely resting on Christian ethics, for the past two centuries, truth has been accepted as the established norm, with lies and deception being outside what is considered as acceptable behaviour. However, this is now the ‘status quo ante’: deception and lies are now so commonplace that they are even celebrated on popular TV shows such as ‘The Traitors’.

However, to accuse people of lying in the UK Parliament was considered unacceptable — until last week, when Keir Starmer had to resort to this in order to distance himself from the abominations of Peter Mandelson.

There is, of course, no doubt that both Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have gone considerably beyond that old adage of being ‘economical with the truth’; but all this outrage and rejection has eclipsed what should be a major concern regarding the Epstein revelations — this being that, apart from protecting the identity of his victims, what else lies behind the myriad of redactions, and the millions of unpublished documents?

The word ‘scapegoat’ implies a degree of innocence which is clearly inappropriate here: but is the U.S. Justice Department enabling a massive protection regime for Donald Trump?

The image we have used for this commentary seems to relate directly to that conversation between Jesus and his disciple Peter on the beach by the Sea of Galilee, during the weeks after the resurrection. Peter had been warned by Jesus that he (Peter) would deny him (Jesus) three times during the night before the crucifixion; and, sure enough, this is exactly what happened:

‘Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest. Peter followed at a distance. And when some there had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat down with them. A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, “This man was with him.” But he denied it. “Woman, I don't know him,” he said. A little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” “Man, I am not!” Peter replied. About an hour later another asserted, “Certainly this fellow was with him, for he is a Galilean.” Peter replied, “Man, I don't know what you're talking about!” Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed. The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: “Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times.” And he went outside and wept bitterly’.

In order to establish the confidence that Jesus could have in Peter going forward, he challenged him — also three times — in order to gain Peter’s assurance, and this enabled his trust to be restored:

‘When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”’

A rather quicker process than that set out in this week’s episode of The Hypnotist, ‘Searching for new levels of trust following a betrayal’, but none the less effective for the rest of St. Peter's life.

That betrayal was based on fear, that St. Peter might end up in the same position as Jesus on that fateful night. There's no doubt that Mandelson's betrayal of confidential Government information in 2010 was caused by greed as opposed to fear: but, here again, we see that toxic combination of fear and greed providing the foundation for dishonesty, just as it does for conflict.

A couple of weeks ago, our commentary focused on the lack of a moral compass for young people: but the same applies for society as a whole. People feel that they cannot take anything at face value anymore, and the deception and dishonesty which riddles social media are significantly exacerbating this problem.

The loss of a moral compass has much to do with the sidelining of faith-based morality over the past few decades. As we've mentioned earlier, it's not that the Christian story has not itself experienced its share of betrayals — they go right back through the biblical stories. But faith-based unconditional love challenges fear and greed with real hope for the future: a hope which is therefore based on honesty.

So, when politicians and others seek to sideline faith (perhaps due to their concern that the presence of multiple faiths within society presents a challenge to stability) and instead they try to rely on purely secular norms of guidance, what they are doing is to put at risk that moral compass which has served the country — and the world — increasingly well throughout the past century.

Of course, it's fun to play games with determining what is true and what is false. TV programmes such as ‘Call My Bluff’ and, more recently, ‘Would I Lie To You?’ have entertained audiences for decades and, in a sense, ‘The Traitors’ continues to do just that.

But there is a serious point here: that we need to re-establish the reason for truth as the basis for being able to have trust in one another.

Democratic governments must play their part in making this happen, and the U.S. Justice Department is not helping that cause by sheltering so much information which might challenge Donald Trump. We need a clear statement from them that there are no reasons which justify the withholding of so much information other than the protection of victim identities and the genuine protection of national security  (which does not mean just the protection of the U.S. President).

And, in the United Kingdom, we should welcome closer cooperation between faith and public services so that people can see first-hand how ‘loving your neighbour as yourself’ can lead to a new basis for honesty throughout society.

In the Diocese of Oxford, these three words have helped to guide people over the past ten years: courageous, compassionate and contemplative. All three are drawn from the teaching in the Beatitudes, which open the ‘Sermon on the Mount’. The first helps us to deal with fear, the second to challenge the temptation of greed and self-interest, and the third to reflect on the need for honesty, both within ourselves and with others.

After talking last week through the logic for these three words, Bishop Steven of Oxford reminded us of this quotation from GK Chesterton, ‘When people stop believing in God, they'll believe in anything’.

Is this really where we want to be?

Gavin Oldham OBE

Share Radio