In the Oscar-winning film The Lives of Others, an East German intelligence officer explains how he can tell when someone is guilty. In his experience, innocent people will say everything they possibly can about their actions to persuade whoever’s listening that they’re blameless. Guilty people, meanwhile, stick to one carefully formulated line, never deviating from it, no matter how many questions they’re asked.
Advice from a fictional communist might seem an odd starting point for a Christian article. But the character’s opinion draws strong support from Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 4:2: “By the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.” According to Paul, being willing to speak openly is a universally-recognised virtue.
The reason why Christians, in particular, should speak and act openly is explained in John 3:20–21: “For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” In other words, those who find their self-worth in God don’t live in fear that their sins will be exposed. Instead of hiding their past deeds, they’re willing, when necessary, to “come to the light” so that God will be glorified for forgiving their sins and empowering their acts of obedience.
Does Jesus himself present a counter-argument? After all, Isaiah said the suffering servant would be as silent as a sheep before its shearers (Isaiah 53:7), and Jesus did indeed remain silent when questioned by Herod and for most of his interrogation by the Sanhedrin. But when he was cross-examined in relatively good faith by Pilate, a questioner who was willing in principle to release him, Jesus spoke with remarkable openness (John 18:33–38; 1 Timothy 6:13). Even in much more hostile circumstances, he was willing to speak plainly when necessary (Mark 14:61–62).
Bible-believing Christians, therefore, should expect their leaders to give full, transparent answers when questioned in good faith about their own or their organisation’s conduct. But the current culture of British conservative evangelicalism demonstrates precisely the opposite approach. A range of organisations have shown, when challenged, that they prefer defensive silence to full and frank communication. Some examples include the International Presbyterian Church, the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, St Ebbe’s Church, the Regional Gospel Partnerships, the Church of England Evangelical Council, St Helen’s Bishopsgate, Church Society, and ReNew (see the appendix at the end of this article).
One recent example of this incommunicativeness is Oak Hill College’s refusal to engage with valid questions about its treatment of a former faculty member.
Read it all at Sixty Guilders