In Recognition of Hypocrites
Donald Sensing, an ordained United Methodist minister, has written a very interesting post entitled “Hooray for Hypocrites”. Here is a snippet.
But no matter how you cut it, Jesus was pretty harsh on hypocrites. So how can I be rooting for them?
Because hypocrisy requires the hypocrite to believe in something or someone outside himself. Hypocrisy requires an aspiration to something higher or better than oneself. That is the meaning of the folk saying, “Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.” Hypocrisy is an imperfect, deficient attempt to be better.
Thankfully I have known very few non-hypocritical people. They were insufferable. They were entirely self centered, self directed, self oriented, self focused and just plain purely selfish. They recognized no cause, entity or belief higher than themselves, their own desires, wants or needs. You can see, I’m sure, that it is impossible for such people to act hypocritically because they are always looking out for No. 1 in every situation. They never pretend they are acting in someone else’s interests. They don’t seek others’ approval because they don’t fundamentally care about others or what they think.
Very, very rarely is this kind of person to be found in a church (or a synagogue, either, I would imagine). The church-attending hypocrites over which the seminar attendees clucked-clucked so sadly are not actually hypocritical in the usual meaning of the word: “a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.” Yes, they fall short of what they intend, but their striving is real, not phony, and they try to do better. If they are hypocrites, then so was St. Paul.
It is deceit that makes hypocrisy what it is. The true hypocrite wants others to think better of him/her than is actually justified. Absent this deceit, there is no hypocrisy, just error or human frailty. That’s what the hypocrisy-excuse people don’t understand - or pretend not to understand - about church people. What may appear to be church people’s hypocrisy is almost always just simple failure to meet the standards of our faith rather than deceit. Why? Because the standard is so high.
Excellently put. For some reason, pop culture elevates the libertine who believes in nothing, practices no code of ethics or morality, over the religious person who believes in something, yet fails to achieve that which he strives for. By the way, all of us, every human being, from Billy Graham to the Pope, sins on a daily basis. A religious person who believes in something, but fails to live up to his own standards, is not really a hypocrite, in spite of the fact that others label him one. A hypocrite is somebody who is acting, or attempting to deceive others. Basically hypocrites do not really believe in what they teach and preach. Most of the religious people that fail, at the applause of people like William, actually do believe in the standard that they are not able to measure up to. They are not hypocrites.
Instead of calling somebody who comes up short, a hypocrite, who don’t we applaud that person for trying? Instead, we celebrate the one who doesn’t try.
What a load.
Look at the people William brings up. They happen to be hypocrites, yes, but usually of a particularly heinous kind.
Your whole point is, a person should get credit for claiming that they tried to be good. I don’t think so.
“But I’m only human, its expected that I’ll sin. Lucky old jeebus has got by back”.
Bullshit.
When you say, “the one that doesn’t try”, WTF are you talking about? That is nothing but outright, judgemental bigotry against non-believers and other people that don’t give shit about judgemental bigots.
Glen,
Thanks for posting this. I’ve been saying it for years! The usual response is to accuse me of not wanting to admit to my own hypocrisy. Talk about minds unable to grasp a slightly subtle concept!
This is a little late in coming, but thanks, too, for TennesseeFree! It’s infuriating to see the other side’s bilge overflow here on occasion (I say that knowing that BOTH other sides feel that way). But what better way to start, maintain and advance the conversation than to have it in a truly free environment where no one will censor you and where you have to bring your “A” game or go home bruised?
On a personal note, I still am unable to contact you at the email addy you provide. Perhaps you could email me an alternative method of contacting you for those rare moments?
Ken
What a bunch of self rightous crap. I only wish Ayn Rand herself could be here to tear you a new asshole. Just because I don’t care what you think or seek your approval does not mean I “don’t fundementally care about others.” That does not logically follow. You are merely stating prejudices, in a not so cloaked way.
HBK, calm down. Take a breath.
What I am saying is that people who adhere to a certain code should not be condemned when they fail to measure up, after all at least they tried. On the other hand, the libertine should not be praised for believing in nothing, and having no set of principles to violate. Yet that is what the left does. They lift up the libertine, but condemn the fallen, by falsely labeling them as hypocrites. I don’t have time to go down every one of William’s posts, as numerous as they are. The guy practically spooges all over his monitor when he finds a Christian committing a sin. There may have been a few who are really hypocrites, according to the definition. Like I said, I don’t have the time, nor the desire to skim through all of his posts.
No its not. That is basically a non-religious/ non denominational statement that I made. Basically, one that doesn’t try, is someone who, well doesn’t try to live a certain way, by a certain code. Whether that code be one that the individual made up himself, or a religious one, the one who lives by one and fails to measure up to his own standard should not be labeled a hypocrite. That is a misuse of the term.
A true example of the word hypocrite, an actor, one who does not really believe what he preaches, are the rich and famous that adhere to the Global Warming religion. Obviously, based on their lifestyle and actions, they don’t believe what they preach.
Thanks BCM.
HBK, just to let you know. The excerpt you cited was written by Donald, not me. If Ayn Rand was here, I would direct her to Donald.
Glen:
You (and sensing) appear to be operating from a different definition of hypocrisy than I am. A “hypocrite” isn’t (necessarily) someone who fails to practice what they preach. A hypocrite is someone who believes they shouldn’t have to practice what they preach. That is, someone who advocates for or enforces double-standards.
With that in mind, an environmentalist (to use your example) who fails to fully live a “green” life is no more a hypocrite than the Christian who fails to fully live a “sin-free” life. On the other hand, an environmentalist who (for example) advocates for a law dramatically improving fuel efficiency while simultaneously arguing that he or she should be exempt from that law, would, in fact, be a hypocrite.
A hypocrite believes they shouldn’t have to practice what they preach because they don’t believe in what they preach. That last part is hugely important. For instance, the TV preacher character in that Steve Martin movie (can’t remember title) was a hypocrite because he didn’t really believe. He was just acting for money.
I won’t argue with you on the movie star/global warming types. In fact, I may be wrong. But the fact that they have not changed their lifestyle at all, the fact that they only preach to middle class people, and shame middle class people like me, yet continue to live in mansions and fly in private jets, tells me that they don’t, they can’t really believe that we are destroying the planet. If I were them, and I really believed what I said, I would live like Ed Begley jr. Now theres the real thing. If the global warming preachers all start living like Ed, I might believe them.
Steve Martin movie: Leap of Faith, I believe. Never saw it.
Not sure I agree with you about the global warming types, though. I’m sure there are some cases of opportunists who don’t really believe it but are trying to cash in. There always are. But just because you don’t go all Ed Begley doesn’t mean you don’t believe. Some of us (myself included) simply believe that a few people doing a few big things won’t make much difference, while a lot of people doing a lot of modest things could make a huge difference. Even if I could personally reduce my personal net carbon output to zero, or even below, it wouldn’t make a dent. But by advocating for broad changes that everyone can make without hugely sacrificing the American way of life, we can make a real difference.
Forgot to mention: In the case of Gore, you can argue that he hasn’t changed his lifestyle enough but it’s grossly unfair to suggest that he hasn’t changed his lifestyle at all. Travel schedule aside, he’s made many of the changes and done many of the things he suggests others do. He even buys carbon offsets for all of his travel. Again, you can argue that it’s not enough, but you can’t really say it’s “not at all.”
Glen,
I know that section was quoted; I was not attributing it to you.
It is wrong because it assumes that the definitive aspects of “fundamentally caring about others” must necessarily be merely seeking approval and caring what someone thinks. I can not care what someone thinks and still respect his basic humanity, in so far as I would not endorse the trampling of basic human rights. For example, this is why I oppose the war against the Iraqi people. It is offensive because it implies that morality must be measured mainly in terms of selflessness. The clergy loves to push that crap because they make their living off of handouts. Fortunately, Ayn Rand invented a whole branch of philosophy debunking that nonsense so I don’t have to waste my time.
Every one is bound by the civic duties inherent in the rule of law. The ‘left’ does not ‘praise’ those that choose to ignore this. They are called criminals. These are the only people that “believe in nothing.”
If you are not talking about a criminal, accusing someone of “believing in nothing” is an act of judgmental bigotry.
HBK, I understand your disagreements with that particular excerpt. I agree with the overall message of Donald’s post, but that part was a little confusing.
As for criminals, I am pretty sure that many of them do believe in something. In fact, if you interviewed any high level mafia member, or even low level gangsta, most would consider themselves to be public benefactors or even noble and honorable people picked on by the govt.
As for judgmental bigotry, I could sit in my house, bothering nobody, but many would accuse me of being a judgmental bigot for putting a fish on my car. And when I was seen at the dope man’s house, because I am an addict, I would then be labeled a hypocrite. Just an example, btw. Some people are overly sensitive to being judged, when all that is going on is harmless expression. Not saying you do this. Just sayin.
Tgirsch, again I don’t want to argue about the Hollywood global warming type, but I do admit to being less respectful of the limousine environmentalist than the average guy out there marching and helping others.
Glen,
What a criminal may or may not believe has no bearing on the fact that a non- criminal necessarily believes ‘something’, as evidenced by his adherence to the rule of law. Incidentally, cases of civil disobedience against unjust laws do not constitute criminal behavior.
If one finds people that are unabashedly motivated by self-interests to be “insufferable”, that is a valid personal preference. However, to assert that they necessarily “don’t fundamentally care about others” is prejudicial, as is your assertion that a so-called “libertine” necessarily believes in nothing.
“Harmless expression” is one thing, but it suddenly becomes a lot less harmless if someone gets the idea in his head that other people’s private lives are his business. I know you aren’t in that group, but it’s always worthwhile to expose prejudice. Just sayin’.
No problem HBK.
I have compassion for prisoners, btw, and much respect for prison ministries and those that take AA/NA meetings to prisons. At least half of them (nonviolent drug offenders) shouldn’t be there, in my opinion. But that’s an argument for another day.
Remember the prisoners, as though in prison with them, and those who are ill-treated, since you yourselves also are in the body.– Hebrews 13:3
A religious person who believes in something, but fails to live up to his own standards, is not really a hypocrite, in spite of the fact that others label him one. A hypocrite is somebody who is acting, or attempting to deceive others. Basically hypocrites do not really believe in what they teach and preach. Most of the religious people that fail, at the applause of people like William, actually do believe in the standard that they are not able to measure up to. They are not hypocrites.
Not really a hypocrite … unless that person happens to be Al Gore or Bill Clinton or a political adversary. So if they are a ‘religious person’ like a priest who molests, or a republican pro-marriage amendment politician who gets caught with a whore or in gay sex, thats ok… they get a pass because they are not attempting to deceive others? Who the fuck are you kidding? Have gay sex in the closet is not “attempting to deceive others”??
This is textbook authoritarian philosophy (not what I wrote but taken from this text published by Harvard U Press)\
* Use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness.
* Be dogmatic.
* Be zealots.
* Be hypocrites.
Not what I said. Run with it though.
Authoritarian blah blah blah. White Christian blah blah blah.
William,
Authoritarian blahblahblah is right, but:
You are dogmatic.
You are a zealot.
Your carbon footprint (but nothing else, mind you) has to be larger than mine unless you use oars with your outboard and pull it behind a Sentra; hence, you are, arguably, a hypocrite.
Someday, maybe, you’ll realize that it is not necessarily felonious, or insane or immoral to disagree with you about public policy.
BS Ned, you have no clue
Oh, okay.
I do admit to being less respectful of the limousine environmentalist than the average guy out there marching and helping others.
Shouldn’t that be true of just about any celebrity/political activist? I don’t see why the Tim Robbinses and Al Gores of the world should be held to a different standard than the Charleton Hestons and the Drew Careys.