“Glaucoma has been called the “silent thief of sight” as it is asymptomatic but causes irreversible vision loss. One of the most common ophthalmic conditions in the world, it is also the leading cause of irreversible blindness (World Health Organization, 2010)… Glaucoma …. is a silent progressive disease and is one of the leading causes of preventable blindness …Screening is key to diagnosis, and treatment adherence is critical to prevent vision loss in those who are diagnosed[1]
I have a personal interest in glaucoma. It runs in my family. A disease which steals sight by imperceptible degrees until one is blind sounds like horror fiction: yet it frequently happens.
Something similar is happening to our ability identify truth and tell it apart from falsehood. Whereas anyone in the public eye used to be careful not to be caught out being ‘economical with the truth’, now words are deliberately used without regard to truth or fiction. I don’t know if this is a cause or a symptom of the disease but of this I am sure: there is a silent thief at work causing us to lose our ability to perceive truth, albeit by such gradual degrees that we are becoming oblivious to our loss. Here are two stark examples which illustrate how successfully the silent thief is at work.
On 8th October 2018 When Kavanaugh was sworn in as a Justice of the Supreme Court, President Trump declared to the world, “You Sir, under historic scrutiny, were proven innocent.”
However one characterises the U.S. Senate hearing that approved Kavanaugh’s appointment, it was not a trial. The Senate committee had no power to declare innocence or guilt and it did not pretend to. Trump’s proclamation that his appointee had been ‘proven innocent’ was untrue. We have become so used to such falsehoods that they seem hardly worthy of note. But each lie is worth noting and identifying for what it is, lest we become accustomed to a declining standard of truth, just as diseased eyes can become accustomed to increased darkness even when exposed to the mid-day sun.
For further evidence of increasing darkness, consider the reaction of Trump’s senior advisor and son-in-law, Mr Jared Kushner, to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. According to the New York Times he said
“We’re getting facts in from multiple places. Once those facts come in, the secretary of state will work with our national security team to help us determine what we want to believe.”[2]
It’s worth pondering that sentence. One sign that the truth-thief is at work is when a fact ceases to be a fact if someone does not want to believe it. This is the reverse side of the coin that proclaims something to be a fact on the basis that the person talking wants to believe it, despite there being no evidence to support it (e.g. that Kavanaugh was ‘proven innocent’).
If glaucoma is to be treated, early inspection and detection is essential. Likewise the actions of the truth-thief. “The sayings of the wise are like nails firmly fixed.” (Ecclesiastes 12:11 ). The sayings of those spreading this disease are the opposite: like words writ in water. Unreliable, temporary and worthless.
Trump’s presidency began with a public row about how many people attended his inauguration. The White House made false claims and the world laughed in ridicule. That was 20th January 2017. Less than 2 years later we are now becoming as accustomed to hearing words used as weapons irrespective of their veracity as a glaucoma sufferer becomes accustomed to receding light. We are in the danger zone where treatment is essential if blindness is to be avoided. The ability to perceive words of truth and tell them apart from what is not true should not be taken for granted. We have to work at it by sifting what we hear, identifying and calling out what is not true and having the courage to stand up for what is true.
The two examples given above are from the USA. Further examples could be given from UK politics. And it does not stop at politics. Why should anyone tell the truth when telling less than the truth can be effective to achieve one’s ends? Here’s the rub. If all you care about is winning, lie away: suppress inconvenient truths and present dodgy evidence, gift wrapped and enhanced to delight the listener and sparkling to please the eye. History shows that this works, at least in the short-term.
History also shows that there are long-term consequences. A society that loses the ability to identify what is true is in deep trouble. Mutual trust and confidence declines. Communities break down. When everything is doubted, relationships collapse and every relationship, be it commercial or family, is undermined. Maybe this is why the Judaeo-Christian tradition puts a very high value on truth telling:-
16 There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, 19 a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers. 20 My son, keep your father’s commandment, and forsake not your mother’s teaching. Proverbs 6:16–20 (ESV)
12 Which of you desires life, and covets many days to enjoy good? 13 Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit. 14 Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it. Psalm 34:12–14 (NRSV)
There is a further argument which sounds strange to our secular ears but which would have been taken for granted in times past. God hears what we say. He knows truth from untruth and He will hold us accountable for our words. Now there’s a thought. (1 John 1:5, Psalm 50:16-23, Psalm 139:1-4). One day each of us will discover for ourselves whether this is true.
But you do not have to believe in God to appreciate that there are strong logical reasons why a society which regards truth as optional is undesirable. Would you want to visit a doctor if you thought he would tell you what you wanted to hear rather than what he knew to be true? Would you want to be in a police station or a court if the police said what they wanted to be true (in order to increase detection rates) rather than what the evidence said? When you die, what matters most to you: how those you love remember your character or how people record your achievements?
- https://perma.cc/F46X-5WKM Marsden J (2014) Glaucoma: the “silent thief of sight”.Nursing Times; 110: 42, 20-22 ↑
- https://perma.cc/2SGW-SYN4 New York Times 22 Oct 2018 ↑
The words are attributed to King David. They show his single minded determination to give priority to ‘find[ing] a place for the Lord’. David was thinking in terms of building a temple that would represent God’s dwelling place. Christians could easily dismiss these words because the significance of the Temple was radically altered for Jesus’ followers in light of Jesus’ words ‘where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them’ (Matthew 18:20). To dismiss David’s words would, however, be to miss out.
‘Finding a place for the Lord’ no longer means locating a suitable plot of land, assembling a workforce, gathering lavish materials and embarking upon a massive building project. Today it is equally demanding but the demands are different. It means finding time and making space so that Jesus can influence the decisions we make. It means deliberately forming habits which will allow the Holy Spirit to determine our ‘shape of living’ (to borrow a phrase from the title of David F. Ford’s excellent book, see below).
This is an entertaining film. It’s a compelling story, well acted and with a strong ‘feel good’ factor. It is interesting to speculate why it has been produced at this particular time and why it resonates in 2018. It is unfortunate that the film fails to record the depths that Nixon and his men went to in a quest for revenge.
We don’t have to guess why the Pentagon Papers troubled Nixon and his inner circle. We have a transcript from the Nixon Tapes, recorded in the Oval Office on 14th June 1971
The film would probably have felt less good but been more true to history had it told what happened to Daniel Ellsberg, the defense analyst who leaked the papers to the press in the first place. Ellsberg was charged with offences that would have carried a sentence of 105 years in prison. His trial was halted by Judge Bryne on 11 May 1973 because of events which the Judge said ‘offend a sense of justice’ and ‘have incurably infected the prosecution of this case”.
Among ‘the events’ that the Judge was referring to was a government authorised burglary. In August 1971, two months’ after the conversation between Nixon and Haldeman quoted above, Nixon’s deputy assistant, Egil Krogh, two former FBI agents and a member of National Security Council staff met secretly. Together they planned to break into the office of Mr Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, Dr Lewis Fielding in the hope of finding documents which would enable them to discredit Mr Ellsberg. According to Mr Krogh, John Ehrlichman, assistant to the President, authorised the break in ‘if done under your assurance that it is not traceable’
Recent Comments