I was watching a TV series called "The Dragon Prince"—well, after a certain season it was renamed to "The Mystery of Aaravos," but people still call it "The Dragon Prince." There's a couple things I want to talk about concerning the show, but one in particular has been on my mind the heaviest. I even had a small conversation with a coworker, who also watches the show, about the point.

The Scene in Question (Spoilers)

The following two paragraphs have spoilers for season 6 of "The Dragon Prince" (or "The Mystery of Aaravos," if you prefer).

Two of the main characters in the show embark on a journey to destory a mystical prison which contains the major villain of the series. Their plan was to replace the actual prison (which looks to be roughly the size of a kickball) with a cake that looked identical to it, then take the real one to a special group of elves they believe can destroy it. While there, one of these elves tells the main character he brought decoy instead of the actual prison and his resolve is shattered. He gives up on everything. Another elf expresses disappointment in the elf who revelaed the truth; she asks something along the lines of "what good is truth if it causes damage?"

This is an age old question. It's something we even discussed in my ethics class. In that class the overarching question was "Does the end justify the means?" This is where things get fuzzy; as humans we may think we know the end but we have no idea what will happen next. In the case of this scene, the elf doesn't tell the main character about his blunder because he is aware that if he does so it will crush the main character's spirit and prevent the main character from completing a ritual that will purify the soul. In the elf's mind, he is sparing the main character from the inability to progress into a better person. What actually happens though is that the main character falls into a false sense of security and they don't worry about the prison, allowing it to fall in to the wrong hands and the dangerous prisoner to be released.

The Gray Areas

In my post on the commandment not to bear false witness, I brought up a couple situations where telling the truth actually seems like the wrong thing to do. Sometimes it is moral conviction against something society is doing (e.g., if someone was helping slaves to freedom during the antebellum period, they would likely have to lie in certain situations). Other times it may be that a lie saves the person in front of you but condemns the world (e.g., the scene from the TV show; the main character was saved but havoc is unleashed on the world). I think the most common situation for us today though is the issue of sparing someone's feelings in a moment that may cause harm in the future.

Going Against the Grain

There have been countless times in history in which mainstream society was content with violating human rights and mistreating people. Two well known cases of this are American Slavery and the Holocaust. In both cases people who were not members of the targeted class went out of their way to assist those being persecuted, abused, and otherwise mistreated by society. Conductors of the underground railroad gave runaway slaves a place to stay for a while, directions to the next stop, food, and clothes. Everyday citizens hid Jewish friends (or perhaps even strangers) to keep them safe from the death camps. At any point during their operations someone could have asked a question in which the true answer would have put them, as well as those they were helping, in jeopardy.

Two passages come to mind when I think on this question: Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 and Deuteronomy 23:15:

Ecclesiastes tells us theres a time for everything, and while it doesn't explicitly call out the commandment to not bear false witness, it does speak about killing (another action forbidden by the commandments). If there is a time to kill and a time to heal, is it not possible that there is also a time to bear false witness? Further, in Detureonomy 23:15, we see that escaped slaves were not to be returned to their master so if someone made it to a conductors house, Biblically, the conductor is obliged to keep them safe from their master. (Now that's a verse slave owners didn't want their slaves to be able to read!)

One vs. Many

The example in the scene is quite grand for most of us. I don't think I've ever encountered "the chosen one" who is out to save the world from certain doom. Also, to be quite frank, these story lines are a bit contrary to The Most High—in the end He will pronounce judgment on the world and a lot of people are going suffer the consequences. It's not really our job to save the world from destruction (lots of nuances and caveats to this see my footnote below[1]).

A more likely example of this in our lives is probably more localized. For instance, the church I attended in Florida got into a debate about a picture of a white man some people claim to be Jesus. There were people who saw nothing wrong with the image, people who argued that Jesus was actually black, and those who said the issue is graven images (a violation of the 2nd commandment). In the midst of this argument, the death of George Floyd[3] occurred and the church was divided into camps of people who wanted to support Black Lives Matter vs. those who didn't. There was a need for the head pastor to address the contraversy and a desire to unite the church.

As I spoke to the elders and pastors of the church, there was a major concern from them about alienating the 2% of the church that was white. Prior to my arrival, the church had been predominately white, but as more black people joined and became elders plus non-white pastors being sent to lead the church, many of the white members left the church.

One elder argued that there were no predominately white churches in the area for them to go and voiced concern about what would happen to them if they felt alienated or attacked by the discourse. On the other hand, I was (and still am) of the mind that if you leave a church over something like this you're probably racist and not actually in relationship with God. Messiah was not European, he probably didn't have blue eyes, and he probably wasn't fair skinned. The fact is, the white man in the painting is not Messiah. Doctrinally, I think it is a violation of the 2nd commandment regardless of what race Messiah would be considered today. I also think its dangerous to continue perpetuating the idea that the Bible is about (and for) white people by continuing with Renaissance era paintings to depict the people described in it.

But let's pretend for a second that maybe Jesus was a white man with blue eyes. What message would it have sent to the black members of the congregation in a faith that has historically weaponized the Bible against us? How many atheists and Black Hebrew Israelites would that message create?

These are more likely to be the types of issues where we have to decide what is best. Now, as I mentioned in my disclaimer, this example is very interpretation based; there is no black and white truth like someone asking me if I have a dollar and I say no when there actually is a dollar in my pocket. However, the principal still holds. There will be times when the truth is offensive, and maybe even hurtful to people. If we are in a position where we must speak on the issue does it matter if majority will be hurt? Does it matter if its the minotiry that are hurt instead?

Sparing Feelings

Sometimes the truth hurts. My mom visited me this weekend and brought me some macaroni and cheese. She said "I tried making it with oat milk so it's ok if you don't like it; I won't be offended." That's what she said, but she asked me every day that she was here if I liked it and accused me of not liking it before I even tasted it. She will most definitely be offended if I say I don't like her macaroni. I haven't actually tried it yet so I don't know what it tastes like, but let's say I don't like it. I may be tempted to lie and say I did to spare her feelings. This I believe is the most common type of lie we tell as humans. The danger here, however, is if I tell her it's good and she decides to keep making her macaroni this way when actually, I dislike it. Or even worse, she makes it for a potluck at work or for some charity event and no one likes it.

As a "thinking" person instead of a "feeling" person (on the Myers Briggs scale), I'm more inclined to tell people the truth regardless of how it makes them feel. It has only been in more recent years that I've been able to step back and see these situations from an emotional point of view. I still lean toward finding a polite way to tell the truth, but I also understand the draw of trying to spare someone's feelings.

Perhaps the best example of this is the conversation between woman at the well and Messiah in Matthew 9. Messiah doesn't omit truth or lie to her, but he also doesn't judge or condemn her. He is honest and matter of fact. As hard as it is to follow this example, I think this is the best way to go. The trick is having our hearts right so that our honesty doesn't come with a side of condemnation.

Footnotes & References

1. While I do believe our world is going to meet its end and judgment will come to the wicked, I also think there are ways we contribute to the destruction of this place that we should not be contributing to. For instance, just because God said there will be plagues in the end does not mean I should stop washing my hands and help cause a plague. Just because waters will dry up as we approach the final days, that doesn't mean we should waste and pollute water or otherwise harm the environment.
2. Ree Hughes. "No Graven Images". PSALMS to God. August 2015
3. "George Floyd". Wikipedia; visited August 2024