Hypocrisy

$Hypocrisy Jesus reserved his greatest contempt for it. Commentary by Larry Hallock The hypocrisy of picking and choosing All fundamentalists are hypocrites. They can’t help it. They can’t help it because: first they claim to be “Bible-believing” Christians who take the entire Bible literally—but then they find it necessary to simply ignore many biblical texts that directly contradict each other, that just plain don’t make any sense today or that are much too inconvenient for them to care to obey. They’re in a bind. It’s really quite the “Catch-22” for them. If they stopped claiming every text of the Bible is literally true, so that not every text was of life-or-death importance no matter how goofy (like texts about cooking human feces into people’s food, for example), then we’d all get to pick and choose which biblical advice to take to heart based on what, uh, well, based on what makes sense! They can’t have that. On the other hand, if they stick to their current guns, claiming every text is, well, “like Bible,” they still have to pick and choose because of those many biblical texts that directly contradict each other. Which of the two sets of Ten Commandments in the Bible is the correct one? Which of the two biblical accounts of creation is true? They can’t both be true, given that they directly and substantially contradict each other. Most fundamentalists don’t get out much, so to speak, if they get out at all. (It is a “sin” for them merely to read something that questions their denomination’s beliefs.) By sticking to their guns that the Bible is literally true and perfect, they demonstrate their abysmal ignorance of what the Bible actually says, and they have to pick and choose among the many texts that just couldn’t possibly apply today, no matter how clearly and unequivocally they are written (like God’s command that you stone your unruly children to death). So what to do? The best they can do, if they want to hang onto the notion of literalism, is to pick and choose, but deny they do it and hope few notice. We could sympathize with such a plight, were the real solution to this hypocrisy not so blatantly obvious. And we’re not talking just a few problem texts that they must deal with. There are many texts, for example, that emphatically support slavery. The Bible plainly says God himself told the people exactly where to buy their slaves—presumably if they didn’t capture enough during the bloody rampages it says he sent them on to capture slaves. The Bible is clear in it’s ban on certain meats, the wearing of mixed fabrics, working on the Sabbath, corporal and capital punishment of unruly children...and on and on. And God means business—often the punishment for even minor infractions is death! Christians who claim to take the Bible as the true and literal word of God have to make exceptions for one thing after another, and not just for Old Testament notions. The Bible is also overly clear (in both Testaments) about the role and status of women: second class, the property of men, not allowed to be teachers, etc. Then the Bible is so pornographic in places that if it were held to the same standards we apply to everything else today, it would have to be sold from behind the counter in brown wrapping. Really! (A bill was introduced in Japan to require just that.) The New Testament supports off-the-wall notions like slavery, cursing fruit trees for being out of season when you’re hungry, killing animals for no good reason, etc. Jesus himself demanded, “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” So much for free will. He said he didn’t come to bring peace, but a sword. But then there’s the Sermon on the Mount, which says the opposite. Obviously, one must pick which texts to take literally and decide which contradictory texts to accept as true and which to ignore as false. That makes a hypocrite of anyone who claims every text is literally true. At best, only one of the creation stories could be true. What a burden! None of these texts are problematic to mainstream Christians who don’t believe every text is to be taken as literal and fully applicable today. Unlike fundamentalists, they think reading the Bible for what makes sense makes sense. Of course it requires a person to think, but they figure that’s why God gave them a brain. Today, in a world in which we’ve come to recognize slavery as a bad thing, mainstream Christians just ignore the slavery texts as inapplicable. Done! In today’s more sophisticated view of women as equal human beings, mainstream Christians just ignore the archaic biblical texts of misogyny as inapplicable. Done! At a time when we have come to understand homosexuality in a whole new light, based on new scientific and anecdotal knowledge, mainstream Christians just ignore that handful of texts which obliquely mention certain sexual acts without any recognition of sexual orientation (which wasn’t even understood at the time). Done! But it’s the fundamentalists who are the vocal ones, and they loudly demand that everyone, not just themselves, take all the Bible seriously—even if it has to be enforced at the point of a law! Correction: they say they demand that all texts be taken seriously, but what they mean is that all texts they have picked and chosen to be taken seriously, are to be taken seriously by all. Southern fundamentalists weren’t happy to have to finally throw in the towel over those slavery texts, which they used for years to prove God sanctioned and encouraged slavery. After all, it is in fact right there in the Bible, in black and white, that God approved of slavery as the proper order of things, and even instructed his followers on how to traffic in it. Slave owners were finally shamed into giving those texts up (or forced by law). But they couldn’t just trash those cherished texts as inapplicable, mind you.... can’t just ignore a text merely because it’s dead wrong! So they had to find various rationales for keeping them—without really keeping them. Today they say things like: God knew what he was doing, even if we don’t. Or: We can’t understand the mind of God (although we can and do know God’s mind quite precisely in regard to lots of petty things). Or: God had to keep up the customs of the day because justice and freedom weren’t understood then. Or: The world “just wasn’t ready for it.” They’ll say anything but the obvious, un-convoluted truth, which is: you can’t take all of the Bible literally, because the slave-holding men who wrote it only SAID God told them to do it. (Ironically, the more literally you take something, the more limited its applications and lessons.) So we can be fundamentalist hypocrites, claiming to follow all the Bible when that’s impossible; or we can read the Bible like we read any other “inspired” work, gaining insight where we can, and dumping whatever doesn’t make sense. The latter requires a brain, the former does not. To summarize, what should we do with that handful of supposedly “anti-gay” texts that don’t even address sexual orientation? Easy. We do with them exactly what we already do with the texts on slavery, women and a host of other nonsensical admonitions. Ignore them. If we ignore them while claiming every text of the Bible is true, then we are hypocrites. If we ignore them just because they obviously don’t make sense and couldn’t possibly be true, then we’re intellectually honest. ================================== Read the humorous “Dear Dr. Laura” for a truly unique look at how fundamentalists ignore parts of the Bible that don’t suit them. ==================================$ shapeimage_1_link_0

Dictionary

fundamentalism — noun

a form of Protestant Christianity that upholds belief

in the strict and literal interpretation of the Bible, including its narratives, doctrines, prophecies,

and moral laws.

Writings — Slideshows — Photography — Rehabbing

In other words... (optional wording:)

Page still under construction... editing and tightening focus takes time.

The focus of this page meanders a bit because different topics on this website link to it. The following section, which focuses more on denominational hypocrisies will no doubt be seen by some as “church bashing,” but I think we should tell it like it is. LH

The hypocrisy of proofs

Another earmark of fundamentalism is that the slightest smidgeon of “proof” is claimed in support of an established belief, while a truckload of evidence that disproves the belief is ignored or dismissed. A single, vague phrase (Daniel 8:14, for example) is latched onto as supporting an elaborate doctrine, while dozens of texts that emphatically support slavery or the murder of unruly children (to name only two of many) are ignored simply because they are goofy and embarrassing. Hang on to a jot or a tittle for dear life, if it says what you like, but disregard a mountain of texts you don’t like. Just have an array of nonsensical rationales handy.

When Ellen White’s prophecy that Jesus would return within the lifetime of certain persons failed, its failure was dismissed as unimportant for determining her status as a prophet. Does anyone remotely imagine the same preferential treatment would be accorded to Joseph Smith if one of his prophecies failed in like manner? Hardly! The standard of evidence and proof is hypocritical when it is applied differently to others.

If a sacred religion, or a prophet, or a sacred text were authentic, then no one would ever be in the position of having to make excuses on its behalf, nor lie to cover up its failures.

The hypocrisy of inconsistency

One of the articles I uploaded to this site reports on the General Conference session at which Robert Falkenberg was elected as president of the SDA church. I recalled hearing something about his subsequent resignation under a cloud of scandal, so did some research on the web and added a sidebar to the article. But my comment here is not about him, but about the organized church and those within it who, together, act as a body of leadership which they say is led directly by God. By some accounts, this body, supposedly under God’s direct leadership, railroaded out of church employment a potential whistle blower who worked in the accounting department and whom they feared would expose the full extent of the Falkenberg scandal, including the real financial cost of it to the church. Only one who has seen such a nightmare up close would recognize this alleged harassment (which has all the marks of credibility) as being the typical fodder of corporate America in general. Isn’t the church to behave differently? If it were truly led by God, in the special, direct way claimed, wouldn’t it have taken the high road instead of behaving indecently in order to avoid embarrassment?

And that’s my point—not merely to condemn the behavior, as of course we should do, whether it’s a secular or religious corporation—but to point out that if God were really who they say he is, and if the Bible were really of God, and its promises true, then it would be impossible for this to happen. ...Because God himself would be in control, and God doesn’t err. But the deliberated behaviors were inconsistent with the deliberated statements of who God is and how he leads.

Similarly, the Bible is exceptionally clear about not suing people—yet the church sues individuals and organizations and corporations all the time. There’s a permanently staffed department for it. I can imagine church leaders might respond something like this: “Satan’s people are out there trying to destroy this church. Do you really think God would want us to sit by and let it happen? God helps those who help themselves. We should not expect a miracle to do for us what we could and should do for ourselves.”

But that contradicts God’s clear instructions. Do we really trust his word, as we say we do, or don’t we? God says, without ambiguity, not to sue; and he promises to handle the rest himself and protect the church. If church leaders actually believed God and the Bible, they would have no trouble with such an easy instruction to follow. And when they did so, the results would glorify God, obviously proving his existence and the reliability of his promises. But they don’t believe it. They say they do, but they don’t. Can they be excused, forgiven? Any individual can be weak and slip now and then; but when the official body of leadership deliberately decides to sue (while claiming to be God’s highest authority on earth in its management of the church), there is no other way to describe this behavior other than sheer hypocrisy. They profess to believe what they obviously don’t.

Another inconvenient Biblical instruction that is deliberately ignored by “Bible-believing” Christians who claim to follow every word is that no one should charge interest on loans. It is sheer hypocrisy for the church to charge or receive interest. Personally, I think it would be silly not to; but the Bible forbids it unambiguously, and they claim a dedication to following the Bible to the letter. Claiming to follow it when you don’t is hypocrisy.

An even more spectacular example of religious hypocrisy is health insurance. If the Bible and its unambiguous promises were true, and Christian institutions and individuals honestly believed it, there would be absolutely no need for health insurance. None whatsoever! Either the Bible is true or it isn’t. God makes numerous amazing promises, including the promise of good health (“anything”). God then points out one of his main reasons for making such amazing, almost fantastical promises. And this is important: it is so that he can be glorified by granting the thing promised. In other words, if the church did not sue, and did not have a health insurance plan, God would protect both the church and the believers; everyone would see the results and God would be glorified. Imagine how quickly the “good news of salvation” would reach the “four corners” of the globe if “God’s highest authority on earth” actually believed God and the Bible, and followed the simplest of instructions! Within weeks or months, God would be so glorified that the entire world would see and believe, and we could all be “translated” into heaven right now in our lifetimes!

Everyone knows the real truth: put frankly, the Bible cannot be trusted for exactly what it literally says. We all know it, even the most devout believers on earth know it. That’s why they sue people and take out health insurance. And that’s what makes fundamentalists hypocrites by definition.

And finally, the main point I had in mind when starting to draft this section: Believers will find all kinds of rationalizations to explain why they go ahead and sue people and take out health insurance. I don’t even have to list them (some are cited above), because we all know them. But can you imagine the church allowing similar rationalizations for the benefit of anyone else’s beliefs? Would the Christian church give a pass to some other religion whose sacred text was so unreliable? ...Or to believers of any other religion who so massively failed to live up to the tenets of their text? Hardly. They would say the failure of the text and of its followers is evidence that the religion is false. Such a position is hypocrisy.

During slavery, many saints implored the church thus: “Do you really think God wants us to enslave other humans?” The answer was, “Yes indeed; it might not seem right, but we have the clear word of God right here! Slavery is the divine order of things.” It was only a law enacted by congress that forced many Christians to stop enslaving people, which they had been doing on the basis of clear biblical support. But no law forbids the church to sue or take out health insurance against God’s will, so the church continues to find a rationalization for doing these things. Can you imagine the church allowing the same kind of convenient rationalization across the board, like when it comes to sexual orientation, for example? Ask them, “Do you really think God wants us to deny certain people jobs, housing and intimacy just because of which gender does or doesn’t happen to turn them on sexually?” They will resort to the same old slavery rationale: “Maybe it doesn’t seem right, but we’re sorry, we have the clear word of God right here!”

According to the record, Jesus reserved his harshest condemnation for hypocrites. And so should we.

Return to...

What the Bible Says

Gay Issues page

Christianity article