When I first read the headlines about Barilla being sued I thought that it meant that the purchasers bought the entire company—as though Barilla somehow hid all its manufacturing from some tech billionaires and now they were getting sued for some kind of failure to disclose issue.

But no. It’s far more ridiculous and far more idiotic than that.

These people are filing a class-action suit against Barilla, with a total of $6 in damages, because they assumed, or claimed they assumed, that Barilla was made in Italy and that therefore it was a better product, but the specific boxes of pasta they bought were not made in Italy, therefore they paid too much.

Indeed, the claim is that Barilla deceives customers into believing that it’s an Italian product which gives it an unfair competitive advantage (UCA).

Now, the insane thing is that there might actually be a case here. If Barilla were claiming that it’s pasta were made in America and lying about it. It is important to note that some Barilla pasta sold in America IS made in Italy, but only a few styles of pasta. It’s also important to note that the scarcity of Barilla’s Italian made products in America is largely because Italy does not grow enough durum wheat to meet global demand.

These people might have a case—petty and ridiculous as it is. A case so small that it doesn’t meet the constitutional threshold for a jury trial – which is $20. So, we’ve had 250 years of inflation and the founding fathers would STILL say your case is hardly worth wasting the court’s time! But they want to make it a class action, so they can prove that Barilla has done large numbers of small harms, rather than a small number of large harms. And for various reasons the judge determined not to dismiss. You can read the judges arguments, yourself as to why, but strictly speaking it seems like the Judge is trying to follow the law.

Alright then, so far we’ve established that Barilla pasta is being sued. They are being sued for false advertising in a class action suit. The central claim in that case is that Barilla deceives consumers into believing that their product is made in Italy, which it isn’t, to gain an unfair competitive advantage, which harms customers by inducing them to pay more for a potentially inferior product.

And, frankly, I feel like that claim is not unreasonable. Now, there are all sorts of fun twists and turns this case could take! I’m envisioning blind taste tests, and witness stand breakdowns, but that seems less than likely. Because this case while it IS about product superiority, really isn’t about product superiority. It’s about our interpretation of words and the conveyance of meaning.

Because, you see, Barilla IS owned and headquartered in Italy and they are selling an Italian product. The plaintiffs claim that the presence of the Italian flag on the box next to the words “ITALY’S #1 BRAND OF PASTA” deceives people into thinking that the pasta is made in Italy.

But that’s not what the box says is it? And the box does say that the pasta is made in America. But the plaintiffs claim that the Italian tricolor and the claim about it being the number one brand are too far away from the wording that states where the pasta is made to prevent a reasonable person from being duped.

Now, frankly, I think that if I were on a jury I would tell the plaintiffs to read the whole box and learn how words work. But, at the same time, I don’t think they are entirely wrong. The box certainly could be interpreted as insinuating that the pasta is made in Italy! In fact, I’ve boughten Barilla pasta and assumed it WAS made in Italy. But I’m not suing. And I’m not suing because I’m not a ridiculous person. Also, I’m not suing because I know how marketing works, and I was the guy who chose not to read the whole box! It’s nobody’s fault but mine.

So was I deceived? It really depends doesn’t it. Barilla is Italian owned and headquartered and they ARE in fact the most popular brand in Italy. Moreover, they are selling Italian foodstuffs. Should they be forbidden from using the Italian flag or noting their popularity because these particular noodles aren’t made in Italy? I don’t think so. I think that they are fully within their rights to use the labelling they do.

But I also feel like they are implying or insinuating that the pasta in the box comes from Italian grown durum wheat and is made in Italy. Now, I’m not sure what Barilla is trying to accomplish. I have my guesses, but those are immaterial to what I want us to consider today.

What is important is that whatever Barilla’s intention, the reality is that sometimes the truth can be used to deceive. Sometimes a lie can be made of nothing but true statements.

Now.

Wait.

I know you think I’m a madman! How can you tell the truth and still lie?! How can you tell the truth and not tell the truth simultaneously?! VERY EASILY!

Let me give you a very famous example about a chemical known as DHMO:

o is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.

o contributes to the "greenhouse effect".

o may cause severe burns.

o contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.

o accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.

o may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.

o has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

o as an industrial solvent and coolant.

o in nuclear power plants.

o in the production of styrofoam.

o as a fire retardant.

o in many forms of cruel animal research.

o in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.

o as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

Now, many of you have heard this example before, and you know that the product I’m talking about is water. You see the brilliance of this example, which was invented by a 14-year-old, by the way. The brilliance of it is that it lines up a bunch of true statements and leads you to infer that there is a causal relationship between DHMO and all these negative things. The version I gave you NEVER says that it’s toxic or harmful to humans. But the arrangement of the facts makes it sounds as though it is a nasty industrial manmade compound that needs to be banned.

But how? How do a series of true statements become a lie?

Well, the reason that they become a lie is because when we consider communication, we can’t just look at the pure content of every word and statement isolated from context. We have to look at the message as a whole.

And there’s something even more important. There’s an idea in communication theory called the “implied reader.” Now, I’m not gonna get into the weeds on this, but think about it this way. The implied reader, in writing, is the person who responds to the writing the way the author wants. The writer expects certain people to respond in certain ways to certain things in their writing.

I have an implied listener to these broadcasts, and an implied reader to my theological essays I publish on my website. I have an implied listener to my sermons. If I’m teaching a junior department Sunday School lesson, I have a different idea of who’s hearing me than if I’m submitting a theological essay for publication with a journal. The implied reader is VERY different. And because they are very different I have to change the way I communicate. I’m not going to talk to children the way I’d talk to academic theologians…although sometimes we need to talk to academic theologians the way we talk to children, but that’s another issue!

The point is that ALL of us, know how to change how we communicate based upon how others will hear and receive and interpret and respond to our words. Humans are shockingly good at predicting how people will respond to what we say. And what this means is that for something to be true it not only has to be accurate in its propositions, but the intention must be to communicate truth. Intention matters because all communication revolves around intent. Without intention there is no communication.

If we sit down to have lunch and talk we do so for a purpose, even if the purpose as banal as filling the air with small talk so it doesn’t get awkward, our intention would be to fulfill a social obligation and avoid needless conflict. Whenever we communicate we are engaging in intentional acts, not only in the sense that they are deliberate put that they are purposeful.

Let me give you a great example of lies through truth:

3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

If you look carefully at what Satan says here, he never actually says anything that, taken in isolation isn’t at least technically correct. His first question is a question. He doesn’t assert anything. But what he does do is insinuate that God’s commands are unreasonable. He knows that the woman will now begin to stop thinking about her freedom and focus on her limitations.

So, at the level of the words spoken, it was simply a question, neither true nor false. But at the level of intention it was a lie because it caused her to believe something that was untrue.

Next he tells the woman that she will not surely die. Now the Hebrew is complex. It literally could be translated “dying you shall die” and it is a Hebrew grammatical feature that expresses certainty. First she has a false idea about the command which plays into this, but Satan insinuates that the claim of surely die means that she will physically perish that day. Which she didn’t. And so based upon one reading of God’s command to Adam you could argue that Satan, told the truth. And yet he lied because he insinuated that God would not carry out the punishment He had threatened.

Lastly, Satan says that the woman and the man will be like God, knowing good and evil. Well, God does know good and evil, and so to that degree they would be like God. But the insinuation is clearly that they would achieve near deity. The implication is that by disobeying they would actualize themselves. That by defying God’s will they would be like God.

And of course, Satan is a liar. But you COULD, you MIGHT, you CAN defend every one of Satan’s statements in Genesis 3 as being technically true. But they are still lies. And Jesus says they are lies. Satan lies by telling the truth.

And sadly, all too many people have learned Satan’s tricks. As the old saying goes there are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. And the other one, figures don’t lie but liars can figure.

I’m not here to say whether or not Barilla owes people their money back.

What I am here to say is that if you’re a child of God you have a duty to reject the prince of lies who speaks his native language when he lies.

Christians have an obligation to not only say things that are technically factually accurate and instead to speak the truth in love. Let’s speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.