Hypocrisy, not
What exactly is hypocrisy, that all-purpose accusation?
We are often told in sermons that the word stems from the Greek actors in the theatres. Masks of that time were not flimsy face coverings. Look them up--they were heavy (stone or metal), huge so they could be seen throughout the theatre, had built-in natural megaphones, and were not pretty; they were meant to characterize the person in the play and extend or communicate the plot.
All that said, putting on a mask in that time was a very intentional process, which is the first quality of hypocrisy: intentional deception or hiding of one aspect (the face, here) for the purpose of something else being seen. The motivation was not self-aggrandizement per se.
When we say someone is putting on a mask, we mean they are acting in a way that prevents us from seeing their "true inner self." But who really wants every aspect of their true hidden self to be revealed? We have good reasons for everything about us not to be visible. To think otherwise is a form of self-delusion by itself.
Very well, you say. Hypocrisy is preaching one thing and doing another. Yes. But is our inability to meet the standards we preach or teach or advocate for mean (1) the standards or ideals are meaningless, or (2) we are horrible people?
I teach communication, which by its nature as a discipline is moralistic (advocates for certain behaviors either for the sake of effectiveness or for ethical reasons, such as respect for others' rationality and free will.) I often fall short of the principles I teach, which are often aspirational. Am I a hypocrite because sometimes my PowerPoints fall short of what I teach or write about? (In our very good Open Educational Resources, Exploring Public Speaking, 4th edition, little plug there.)
If I teach in a Bible lesson that gossip is wrong and then I complain about a coworker with another, am I a hypocrite? In the first case (the PowerPoints) I would say no, I'm just a less effective instructor and possibly less credible with my students; I at least show that violating the rules of PowerPoint (and there are many) really is ineffective for an audience. In the second, I'm getting about of light gray into blacker territory.
If someone teaches and preaches marital fidelity and has affairs, that is blackest of territory. Unless....the person falls one time and is restored through a difficult process of repentance. Is that hypocrisy?
Perhaps we are back to dark gray territory. The question is made harder by this fact: not only are Christians to live by the principles they preach, but they are to have the power to do so. Not just inner resources of the will, but power from God. A person who preaches marital fidelity should be intentional about the power to overcome temptation, and better yet, flee temptation and have enough sense not to get into it. Yes, the Billy Graham rule, which has been much maligned of late but I think by foolish people. People married to other people should have strict boundaries.
I write this because throwing the hypocrisy label is easy. Making it really stick is a bit harder, I think.
We are often told in sermons that the word stems from the Greek actors in the theatres. Masks of that time were not flimsy face coverings. Look them up--they were heavy (stone or metal), huge so they could be seen throughout the theatre, had built-in natural megaphones, and were not pretty; they were meant to characterize the person in the play and extend or communicate the plot.
All that said, putting on a mask in that time was a very intentional process, which is the first quality of hypocrisy: intentional deception or hiding of one aspect (the face, here) for the purpose of something else being seen. The motivation was not self-aggrandizement per se.
When we say someone is putting on a mask, we mean they are acting in a way that prevents us from seeing their "true inner self." But who really wants every aspect of their true hidden self to be revealed? We have good reasons for everything about us not to be visible. To think otherwise is a form of self-delusion by itself.
Very well, you say. Hypocrisy is preaching one thing and doing another. Yes. But is our inability to meet the standards we preach or teach or advocate for mean (1) the standards or ideals are meaningless, or (2) we are horrible people?
I teach communication, which by its nature as a discipline is moralistic (advocates for certain behaviors either for the sake of effectiveness or for ethical reasons, such as respect for others' rationality and free will.) I often fall short of the principles I teach, which are often aspirational. Am I a hypocrite because sometimes my PowerPoints fall short of what I teach or write about? (In our very good Open Educational Resources, Exploring Public Speaking, 4th edition, little plug there.)
If I teach in a Bible lesson that gossip is wrong and then I complain about a coworker with another, am I a hypocrite? In the first case (the PowerPoints) I would say no, I'm just a less effective instructor and possibly less credible with my students; I at least show that violating the rules of PowerPoint (and there are many) really is ineffective for an audience. In the second, I'm getting about of light gray into blacker territory.
If someone teaches and preaches marital fidelity and has affairs, that is blackest of territory. Unless....the person falls one time and is restored through a difficult process of repentance. Is that hypocrisy?
Perhaps we are back to dark gray territory. The question is made harder by this fact: not only are Christians to live by the principles they preach, but they are to have the power to do so. Not just inner resources of the will, but power from God. A person who preaches marital fidelity should be intentional about the power to overcome temptation, and better yet, flee temptation and have enough sense not to get into it. Yes, the Billy Graham rule, which has been much maligned of late but I think by foolish people. People married to other people should have strict boundaries.
I write this because throwing the hypocrisy label is easy. Making it really stick is a bit harder, I think.
Comments