Hypocrisy

A common charge leveled against Christians in our society is that they are hypocrites, because they do not always live up to their own standards. Now, it is undeniable that such is often true of Christians, and something to be regretted (as well as eliminated as much as possible). But granting that, one cannot help but wonder why that is regarded as such a damning charge against Christians specifically, or as if it proved anything other than that Christians still struggle with the effects of original sin, which is fairly obvious. There's a reason why one of the seven sacraments is that of confession, after all, which demands the humility to recognize our own sinfulness and need for continual conversion, or, in other words, our need to battle against our own hypocrisy. But is that the best definition of hypocrisy, though?

After all, the difficulty with maintaining that somebody who doesn't always live up to their own standards is thereby shown to be a hypocrite to be mercilessly condemned is this: that to do so implies a corollary that is, at best, paradoxical, and indeed many people would instinctively believe to be erroneous. For, by that definition of hypocrisy, then there is one way, and one way only, to avoid regarding oneself as a hypocrite. (Well, only one way other than the uncomplimentary implication one has no standards whatsoever, which is even worse, and difficult to even realistically conceive to be true of somebody, even if he was to claim such to be the case.) The only real way is by maintaining that one is utterly and absolutely perfect, and not "even like this tax collector" (Luke 18:11). In other words, to avoid regarding oneself as a hypocrite (by that definition of the term) one must embrace to the fullest extent what is commonly associated as the other chief feature of the Pharisees, pride, a smug self-satisfaction which is far more offensive than any human failing which other "hypocrites" may fall victim to. Yet if one can only regard himself as not being a hypocrite (hypocrisy being the most damning of charges in our society's eyes) by imitating the conduct of those most notorious hypocrites, the Pharisees, then I think such a definition of hypocrisy (or at least the level of condemnation associated with it by our society) is highly paradoxical, to say the least.

Once you admit that you have flaws, and therefore aren’t perfect, (assuming you have any honesty and humility whatsoever), then by the previous definition of hypocrisy, you are a hypocrite, because you fail to live up to your own standards. (After all, the very fact that you are forced to admit to having flaws means you both have standards whereby you can recognize them to be flaws, but that you also recognize you fail to live up to such standards, thereby resulting in such flaws being present). But if that makes you a “hypocrite”, then why is hypocrisy regarded as one of the chief sins of our society, committed by the most offensive of people, since anyone who is not a Pharisee is a hypocrite? (However, some of us are so paradoxical as to suggest that the charge of hypocrisy is better applied to the Pharisees than people who, being human, struggle to live up to their own standards. Especially this is so when the standards they set for themselves are extremely high in the first place, not wanting to simply earn cheap ribbons, so to speak.)

Or perhaps I have just answered my own question. Perhaps it is because our society is filled with Pharisees, and they do not even see it. They are blind to their own "hypocrisy" (as defined above). Well, Jesus did call the original Pharisees blind; I suppose some things never change. After all, Christians who are admittedly hypocrites in the sense discussed above are hardly unique in being so, to put it mildly. Everyone is a hypocrite in that sense. But many Christians are much more likely to admit to it. At least they are honest about their own failings, much more so than many of their critics.

In short, he who is without hypocrisy (as defined above), let him cast the first stone. There is indeed a sense in which the above definition of hypocrisy is legitimate (and certainly to be combatted), but only in the sense in which it would apply to every single one of us.

[Note: I hope it goes without saying that I do not mean to criticize anybody who happens to note such “hypocrisy” for legitimate reasons, as long as he still recognizes the “beam” in his own eye as well. For, after all, every one of us have such “beams”.]