An Answer to the Hypocrisy Excuse [Archive] - Big Big Forums

janelle

10-30-2003, 01:02 AM

An Answer to the Hypocrisy Excuse
by Kenneth Richard Samples
This article was published in FACTS & FAITH.

Virtually everyone who has publicly identified himself or herself as a Christian has encountered nonbelievers who base their rejection of Christianity on the apparent moral failures of individual Christians or on the reprehensible actions of Christians corporately through the centuries. While the objection is expressed in many forms, its central thrust is that the hypocrisy of Christians invalidates Christianity. A thorough, sensitive response to this objection involves three elements: 1) identifying its illogic, 2) clarifying a common misperception about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and 3) discussing the emotional issues behind it.

Choosing to reject Christianity because "there are too many hypocrites in the church" or because of "a bad experience with Christian people" is to commit a fallacy known as the "trivial objection." In the study of logic, a trivial objection "focuses critical attention on some point less significant than the main point or basic thrust of the argument."1 The fallacy is committed when an arguer actually raises minor (and/or inconsequential) criticisms of a given position, but then erroneously asserts that the criticisms succeed in completely undermining the given position. The term for this type of fallacy does not indicate that the pain inflicted by Christians or so-called Christians was trivial; so we might do well to avoid the term in conversation with a wounded nonbeliever. When it comes to evaluating the truth of Christianity, however, Christians' success or failure in adhering to biblical principles (ethics) is not the crucial issue. The central issue is whether or not the historical and factual claims of Christianity are actually true (e.g., Was Jesus of Nazareth truly the divine messiah? Did Jesus, in fact, rise from the dead?). From the standpoint of logic, the ethical inconsistency of some Christians (while certainly unfortunate and never to be condoned) has little bearing on the central truth-claims of Christianity. As Christian apologist John Warwick Montgomery once quipped, "If Albert Einstein were arrested for shoplifting, would that make E=mc2 wrong?"

The hypocrisy objection is often exacerbated by the nonbeliever’s confusion concerning the true nature of the Christian faith. Many people see Christianity as primarily a system of ethics. In their thinking, to be "Christian" is to follow certain ethical principles which will inevitably result in the individual becoming a "better person." This is indeed a serious misunderstanding. Christianity is about Jesus Christ, who He is—God incarnate—and what He accomplished—redemption. British theologian Alister E. McGrath articulately describes Christianity’s true focus: It is impossible for the Christian to talk about God, salvation, or worship without bringing Jesus into the discussion, whether explicitly or implicitly. For New Testament writers, Jesus is a window onto the nature, character, and purposes of God. Jesus is the ground of salvation. Since the time of the New Testament onwards, Christians have worshiped Jesus as the risen Lord and Savior of the world.2

The Bible describes sin as a debilitating force that permeates the being of humankind (see, for example, Ps. 51:5; 58:3; Prov. 20:9; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:23; Eph. 2:3; 1 John 1:8). Nonbelievers often fail to realize that according to Scripture, conversion is the beginning—not the end—of a long process of transformation. Moral and ethical perfection is not instantaneous (1 Kings 8:46; 1 John 8-10). Thus a certain level of immaturity and imperfection, including some hypocrisy (though always regrettable) can be expected among Christians. We believers spend a lifetime struggling, not to gain freedom from sin's penalty, but rather to gain freedom from sin's power over our attitudes and actions. The ultimate transformation, of course, awaits the Christian only in the eternal age to come.

Unfortunately, we Christians reinforce the misunderstanding when we convey the message that to be a Christian means to follow a list of rules. Certainly, commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ demands submission to God’s authority and willingness to obey His commands, but true righteousness comes by "divine rescue": Jesus Christ has rescued us from our sin through His perfect life, sacrificial death, and glorious resurrection from the dead. McGrath again provides some helpful clarification: "Christianity is a strongly ethical faith. This does not, however, mean that Christianity is about a set of rules, in which Christians mechanically conform to a set of instructions. Rather, it is about a set of values which arises from being redeemed."3

Closely related to the charge of personal hypocrisy is the more complex and grievous objection concerning all the evil done throughout history in the name of Christ (e.g., the crusades, the inquisition, the war in Northern Ireland). First, while we Christians must accept the fact that Christian history has a dark side, nevertheless we do not have to accept that all those who performed evil actions in the name of Christ were truly Christians or were following Christ's instructions. Their actions represent the very antithesis of His expressed will. Christian philosopher Thomas V. Morris remarks, "Certainly organizations calling themselves ‘Christian’ have often had deleterious and even disastrous effects on human society. But such movements have clearly diverged at least as far from the gospel of Christ as they have from the restraints of common morality. Sheep ought not to be judged by the actions of wolves who wear wool."4 Morris also points out that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, can be a "magnet for the unscrupulous" who prey upon and exploit the sincere and trusting souls who belong to the community of faith.5 Further, to blame "religious wars" exclusively on religion, on Christianity specifically, is naive. Religious wars of the past and present arise as much from economic, political, and social conflict as from religion per se.

Ironically, when Christians violate their own moral principles, it is their own worldview that provides the basis for moral judgment. What basis does secular humanism provide? Where do such concepts as right and wrong come from? If Christianity were to be judged according to the moral and ethical fruit it has produced, we would in all fairness be forced to factor in all of the goodness and benevolence that Christianity has been responsible for over the past two millennia. As Christian philosopher Richard Purtill points out, many of our contemporary views concerning social justice are deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.6 For example, the view that all people are endowed with inherent dignity and moral worth is grounded in the timeless biblical truth that human beings were created in the image of Almighty God (Gen. 1:26-7).

A discussion of logic (and illogic) and clarification of what being a Christian means may be important steps along the way to discovering—and discussing—a person's deeper, often emotionally-charged reasons for rejecting Christ. Here we must proceed with care and compassion, as we would treat a life-threatening injury. An emotional arrow or sword may need to be pulled out, but not without some anesthetic, antiseptic, bandaging, and follow up. In some cases, a warning about the danger of letting the wound become or remain infected with bitterness may need to be given.

In light of the tenderness and humility such a conversation demands, we Christians would do well to live transparent, exemplary lives, repenting not hiding from sin, motivated by hearts full of gratitude to God for his loving kindness toward us (Rom. 12:2; Tit. 2:1-15). Because of His grace, we can admit both to God and to fellow humans when our actions are hypocritical. After all, what better place for hypocrites to be than in church where the transforming power of God can continually convict, forgive, and renew us day by day?