The Whole Truth

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." That's how the oath goes for someone on the witness stand. That's ... well ... ridiculous ... if taken at face value. I mean, does this witness actually know "the whole truth"? And if "the whole truth" was told, wouldn't it take an incredibly long time? "Well, I was born back in ..." Of course, that's not what they're going for. What the oath is asking for is that our witness will tell the truth in the testimony they're about to give, that they wouldn't omit pertinent facts, and that they won't insert lies. Okay, that's not so bad. In fact, in a court of law, it's kind of necessary.

So why do we want something else in churches today? Why is it that we think something else would be better for presenting the Gospel, something far more important than the courts of law? But apparently we want something less than "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

First, I'd like to point out that I'm not the source of this accusation. Paul wrote to Timothy,

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Tim 4:1-4)

The warning is that, in Timothy's lifetime (and, clearly, in Paul's time as well), people in churches would "not endure sound teaching." They would, instead, "accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions" and they would "turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." (I think it's ironic that one of the popular myths today that they are wandering off into is the one about Genesis being a myth.) You see, Paul was warning Timothy of the very thing I was saying; we're not going to accept the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We'll push out the "whole truth" thing, admit lies, and call it "church".

There is a treatment for this, according to Paul. "Preach the Word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching." This immediately disqualifies teaching "what they want to hear" and requires teaching the Word. It immediately puts an end to tickling itching ears and requires the whole truth -- the truth about the topic at hand. Telling people "God loves you" may be truthful, but leaving out God's wrath in the process ignores the whole truth. Presenting the "pleasant parts" of the Bible while ignoring the more difficult, more unpleasant parts is not presenting the whole truth. We want to hear about God's grace and mercy and we should, but not at the expense of those stickier parts like His judgment of sin or His Divine Sovereignty. We like the whole "diversity of gifts working for the common good" idea (1 Cor 12:1-26), for instance, but we're not at all keen on the "You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" kind of concept (1 Cor 5:1-5).

We like the warm and friendly God. We like the "I form light" and "I make well-being" God but cut Him off in mid sentence when He goes on to say, "I create darkness" and "I create calamity" (Isa 45:7). In other words, we like the God of our choosing, not necessarily the God who is. But Jesus said, "I am ... the Truth" (John 14:6) and Paul said that love "rejoices with the truth." (1 Cor 13:6) So what is it going to be? Are we going to receive the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, or are we going to pander to our passions and preferences?