One of my goals in this website was to discuss and either verify or refute the many beliefs about Christians that I would frequently read at places such as Slashdot. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but it really bothers me when people simply do not understand what I stand for. I intended to work on a lengthy background before getting to the myths themselves, but I feel the need to discuss this one in particular now because I recently had an experience that might shed some light on the matter.
So, I hear or read quite frequently that [all] Christians are hypocrites. Before I discuss the merits of this, it should be unnecessary to say that virtually any statement imaginable applies to at least some people who refer to themselves as Christians, and that virtually no statements could apply to all people who refer to themselves as Christians.
Now then, what does it mean to be a hypocrite? Merriam-Webster defines it as “a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion”, which is not very helpful to our discussion. Certainly there are people who deceivingly claim to hold religious beliefs in line with Christianity who in fact do not. (Indeed, the existence of such people is, I think, how some of these myths start.) But it would be illogical to say that all people who call themselves Christians have a false pretense of Christianity, or indeed to say that this is true of any person who is in fact a Christian.
Wikipedia provides perhaps a more useful definition of hypocrisy as “the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice”, which seems closer to what Christians are accused of. But how does this actually apply? Consider the following several statements that a person might make if asked to clarify their belief that Christians are hypocrites:
1. “Christians claim to follow someone who they believe is morally perfect but they themselves are not morally perfect.” This statement is most certainly true, but I do not think it fits our working definition of hypocrisy. The failure of Christians to be morally perfect is not (primarily) a result of them not actually believing that Jesus Christ is a good role-model.
2. “Christians claim to be morally perfect but in fact are not.” This statement is patently false. By my definition of what beliefs constitute the core of Christianity, all Christians must believe that they are morally imperfect.
3. “Christians have thoughts or engage in actions, but censure other people when they engage in the same actions.” There are three reasons this might be true. The first is that the Christian whom we are discussing truly believes this action is morally wrong, but performs it due to his lack of self-control, lapse of judgement, or other reason. This would be covered by the first case. The second is that the Christian truly believes this action is morally wrong, but chooses not to be shackled by morality. The distinction between the two is subtle; perhaps this would be a better way to explain it: In the first case, the Christian engages in this act, later realizes the error of his ways, and attempts to avoid said action in the future. In the second case, the Christian engages in the act but feels no remorse. I cannot really imagine this second reason describing anyone who truly holds to Christian beliefs, but I would be interested to hear anecdotal evidence to the contrary. The third reason would be that the Christian does not believe this action is morally wrong but acts as though he does. Again, i can’t really see how this would fit with Christianity, but I would be interested to hear whether or not people actually think this occurs.
As an example, I recently had a long conversation with a friend who had been in a situation where morality was not clear-cut. When he explained what had occurred I had to respectfully disagree with his opinion that his actions were justified and morally acceptable. Nevertheless, I immediately pointed out to him, it is quite likely that I would have responded in exactly the same manner that he did, despite my convictions to the contrary. To my shame, I doubt that my convictions are strong enough to overcome my will in the heat of the moment with regard to this particular situation. The only difference between us is that, with the benefit of hindsight, I would have felt guilty about my actions. Does this make me a bad person? YES! Part of a mature Christian faith is recognizing that “bad” and “person” are practically synonymous, and freely admitting your own guilt. Paul, one of the cornerstones of the early Chrstian church, wrote about “sinners — of whom I am the worst”, and I think that is a healthy Christian attitude towards self. Does this make me a hypocrite? I tend to think not.
So what is the status of this myth: Busted?, Plausible?, Confirmed? How about “depends on your definition”.
I think, in a certain sense, all Christians are hypocrites because they cannot live by the moral standards of their religion. We have incredibly high standards, after all. Even looking at something in a certain way can be a sin. You seem to suggest that simply being aware of the contradictory nature of our religion alleviates the hypocrisy of it.
Scenario: I believe that indulging in a romantic relationship which cannot possibly lead to marriage is something which should not be done. I believe that Christians should not marry non-Christians because they will be unequally yoked. Therefore, I should not date a non-Christian. But, even believing it is wrong to do so, I do it anyway. I think doing something you know is wrong is the first hypocrisy.
Months later, I hear that a friend of mine has followed the same course. I try to tell her that she should not date a non-Christian. This is the second hypocrisy. Not only did I fail to uphold my principles, but I then tried to hold the high standards I could not achieve myself for another person. Does realizing my hypocrisy and the inconsistency of my actions and beliefs make it any less wrong or any less hypocritical? So we can all enter Christianity knowing full-well that we are hypocrites and admitting it to the world, because if we don’t, others will still notice the inconsistency in our lives. It is because of our hypocrisy that we need Jesus. He forms the bridge between our hypocritical, sinful selves and God.
I think what many people find fault with in Christianity is that so many Christians are unwilling to realize their own hypocrisy and to admit their sinfulness. I think some Christians see admitting sortcomings as a weakness and a stumbling block to sharing the gospel with others. They think that others must see them as perfectly upright, especially other Christians within the church. We don’t live in a Christian society that generally looks favorably on the sinner who brings his sin out into the open before he has been able to conquer it. What would happen in most churches if a young man or woman came before the church body and admitted to being homosexual and repentent, yet was unable to desist from that type of behavior? How helpful would the church really be, or would they throw him out? It’s a more obvious sin, one that people can see. So how many men would be willing to come before congregations and admit that they beat their children, or women who would admit to drinking excessively, or children to cheating on tests? Don’t we all have our secret sins? But how many of us are willing to admit them to others? But the world is watching, and they see this, and they judge our hypocrisy.
Comment by Shaina — March 12, 2006 @ 12:06 am
Very good and interesting points made by all so far. Although I must add that it reminds me of Greg Porter commenting that Christianity is the only religion whose cause is strengthened by the hypocrisy of its followers, as it points out our need for God’s grace in our fallen state.
Comment by John Grebe — March 12, 2006 @ 12:18 am
sorry one more thing.
the Christian engages in the act but feels no remorse:
I believe that the laws of the old testament are still applicable and should be upheld. I believe that not following them is a sin. Many Christians would agree with me on more laws at issue–lying, stealing, sexual immorality, etc. Many Christians would not agree with me on eating Biblically and dressing Biblically.
That beside the point, I do believe it is a sin to wear clothes of mixed fabric because the Bible says so. I wear such clothes anyway. I have made no effort to acquire Biblically safe clothing. I don’t really feel badly about it. I might if I thought about it enough, so I avoid thinking about it in general. Thus, I’m doing something I think is wrong and I feel no remorse. So, am I still a Christian? I think so, but I’m definitely living in hypocrisy.
Comment by Shaina — March 12, 2006 @ 12:18 am
I suppose I wish to define a new term with a different shade of meaning for the action of aspiring to a goal but failing to achieve it, because I see it as an entirely different but related situation to pretending to hold a belief. I think anyone, Christian or otherwise, falls into the first category at times. The vast majority of people have some moral code they hold themselves to, and I would wager that most if not all of them have found that they fall short of it at some time. So if we define hypocrisy that way, then it seems rather empty.
I find your belief that wearing clothes made of multiple fabric types is morally wrong but lack of desire to change your dress fascinating. At some point, I would be interested in discussing the points for and against such a stance with you, but that is orthogonal to the question at hand. How you can hold this belief but make no attempt to reconcile your life with it is incomprehensible to me. Do you believe that leading a moral life is unimportant because of the redemption of Christ? Do you rebel against what you believe to be proper because of pride?
Comment by chadhogg — March 13, 2006 @ 12:06 am
Sinfulness is not necissarily hypocracy. It is, however, the source of guilt and anxiety. This anxiety was the subject of probably most medieval philisophical writing. I mean like tons of it.
Justification does not always mean a complete absense of guilt. To deny that you feel guilty when you do would be hypocracy. But I beleive that to dwell in guilt would be a waste of my life and not the will of God. It’s always there; salvation doesn’t remove guilt, but it removes the crushing weight it would have on us.
Comment by Matthew — March 13, 2006 @ 3:21 am
I’d agree that Christians are hypocritical. By construction they don’t practice what they preach, which to me is a servicable definition of hypocritical.
I think the most common way in which Christians are hypocritical is the third way you said Chad, although in a subtle way. We do A and preach B but fail to realize that B applies to A. Not to make this a political discussion but the first example I can think of is the support for the Iraq war from the religious community. For as long as I can remember I have been hearing the phrase “turn the other cheek” at church. When one of the disciples cut off that soldier’s ear Jesus healed him. There is no conceivable way that you can reconcile Christian beliefs with support of violence, and yet that is exactly the stance reached by the majority of outspoken religious people. I think these are good god fearing people, but for whatever reason they simply don’t understand that the doctrine of peace applies to all situations; they can’t just pick and choose.
Comment by Michaluk — March 13, 2006 @ 10:07 am
Interesting. I think it was wrong for us to enter the Iraq war, but I do not feel this way about war in general. To me, “turn the other cheek” is a maxim that can and should be adopted by individuals but not necessarily by governments. To accept your own suffering without responding in kind is good, but to allow other people to be oppressed when you could prevent this by a violent act against the oppressor is, to me, pure evil. I agree with Edmund Burke that “the only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing”.
I am not sure the oppression in Iraq was enough to warrant this response, but I think it certainly was in World War II. Even if you recognize that the United States was largely ignorant of the Holocaust until we were marching through the German heartland, I do not think it would be responsible government to turn its other cheek after the Pearl Harbor attack. We had no reason to think similar attacks would not continue until, unless we interfered, every American citizen had been killed. When I have more time to reflect, this will probably become a post in itself.
Comment by chadhogg — March 13, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
I agree that a government that practices Christian principles would immediately be swallowed up by its enemies. This in no way permits Christian governments to wage war, it simply proves that no government that continues to exist can be Christian.
God could have easily prevented the suffering of the Jewish people at the hands of the Romans yet did not. I see no difference between this situation and the one you presented. If a government exists to protect its people than the US did well to enter WWII but acts such as this are not morally motivated; the government was simply carrying out its duty and in doing so happened to act against Christian morality.
If the people of the US did act in accordance with Christian beliefs on a large scale and refused to participate we may have all been killed. Of course, if you’re a Christian your death is not at all a bad thing. It seems from history though that God would have delivered us. Many times groups had the opportunity to completely wipe out the Jewish people and did not, I don’t see why this situation would have been any different.
Have to go, my friend is sitting behind me waiting for me to leave. More on this later.
Comment by Michaluk — March 14, 2006 @ 4:07 pm