advindicate

Open full view…

The hypocrisy excuse β€” ADvindicate

Thu, 05 Jun 2014 14:01:01 GMT

Ron Welch
Thu, 05 Jun 2014 14:08:31 GMT

An excellent essay. Hypocrite hunters find excuses, but those who find hypocrisy in themselves run to Christ for forgiveness and cleansing. There is too much hypocrisy in my own life to worry it in about others.

collins
Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:16:30 GMT

Well said. Thank-you, Mr. Paulson.

Elizabeth Iskander, M.D.
Thu, 05 Jun 2014 16:26:23 GMT

Ron said: "There is too much hypocrisy in my own life to worry it in about others." This type of reasoning is used by many to omit church discipline & normalize both hetero & homosexual sins within a church. Is that where you are going? Kevin, Thanks for always addressing much needed issues. I wish you would write on the difference in open sin & secret sin, and the need to address open sin with church discipline. The issues surrounding heterosexual sin frequently are murky and require a fact finding trial which local SDA churches are not equipped to conduct; but homosexual partnering/marriage, that is out of the closet, is similar to a sentencing hearing, as the facts are clear. But beware!!! If you are in a liberal church, you may get disciplined for advocating for church discipline/lifestyle screening!

Richard Thomas
Thu, 05 Jun 2014 20:09:22 GMT

Thank you Kevin, all very true. It was a real eyeopener for me when I found the SDA church. What truths they held, like none I had heard in 50 years of believing Baptist theology. I felt right at home until I began to mingle with the congregation and discover their lifestyles were not much different from the Baptist congregations, other than the food they ate, the day they went to church, and who they let in the pulpit (all externals).

Bob McAlpine
Thu, 05 Jun 2014 20:16:17 GMT

Pointing out hypocrisy or inconsistency is a useful rhetorical device in that it can expose the root behind whatever issue is being argued. So when conservatives point out the liberal hypocrisy of calling for "tolerance" and then refusing to tolerate any dissent from liberal orthodoxy they are not so much pointing out the hypocrisy as they are pointing out that liberals don't believe in tolerance--they believe that they are right and will use anything at their disposal to shut down opposition.

Richard Thomas
Thu, 05 Jun 2014 20:26:44 GMT

Any believer that sins is a hypocrite until they repent. Anyone who says they are are a believer but claims scripture is in error would also be a hypocrite.

Ron Welch
Thu, 05 Jun 2014 20:27:28 GMT

" Is that where you are going?" I was not addressing the issue of church discipline, but rather the subject of the essay, which concerns making the hypocrisy of others an excuse for certain attitudes and actions on the part of those who would rather behold the mote in others rather than the beam in their own eyes. Mt. 7:3

weiersc
Thu, 05 Jun 2014 22:43:39 GMT

I resonate with this article. I am certainly in agreement that the argument that other people are hypocrites does not justify one choosing a particular harmful cause of action. I agree with Jesus' solution that we need to put all our effort into growing from the inside out. Some questions that still worry me: 1. How consistent is the argument of the author with other examples where Jesus deals with hypocrisy. What do we do with John 8, for example, where the hypocrites in that situation were ready to hurl their stones, but Jesus said "let the one without sin throw the first." I wonder if the article does not miss one of the major elements in the hypocrisy argument, which is in essence not particularly the concern of hypocrisy in itself, but the concern about the willingness of hypocrites who feel that they can take a sliver out of one person's eye when they might have a log in their own. Could it be that the issue that undermines our ability to engage constructively in the lives of broken and hurting people could be the overtly political nature of the debate. The au thor refers to lobby groups for example. There always seems to be some or other crusade for purity and truth. The hypocrisy charge almost always seeks to undermine arguments that are based on power, mass mobilisation of people. These arguments stir up people's emotions based on their prejudices and fears. In the process, I wonder if there is not a loss of perspective. In every case we are dealing with somebody who is hurting and vulnerable, somebody with a father and a mother, a brother and sister, somebody with a story to tell and a titanic battle to fight in their lives. But the political approach taken on by lobbyists on both sides causes us to lose sight of the hurting individual. If I read the Bible, it challenges us to shun these self-righteous attempts to create public spectacles around people's vulnerabilities. This is the same sinful dynamic that led to Jesus' crucifixion. Galatians 6:1 calls for gentleness and humility and self searching when we address difficult issues. Hebrews 5:2 honours the perfect high priest whose purpose is to deal gently with the one who has gone astray. 2 Timothy 2:25 also calls for a spirit of gentleness to opponents, and it recognises that ultimately it is God who convicts and changes hearts. How seriously do we follow Jesus' teachings? To what extent are we consistently prepared to have our hearts transformed as Jesus calls us to do in the verses quoted by the article.

Bob McAlpine
Fri, 06 Jun 2014 01:06:32 GMT

> @richardt > Any believer that sins is a hypocrite until they repent. Anyone who says they are are a believer but claims scripture is in error would also be a hypocrite. "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." 1 John 1:8-10 "For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of good is not." Romans 7:14-18 (and all the way to v25, really)

collins
Fri, 06 Jun 2014 05:01:16 GMT

"Could it be that the issue that undermines our ability to engage constructively in the lives of broken and hurting people could be the overtly political nature of the debate." -weiersc I would like to know more about what is meant, here, by "political nature", if possible.

Richard Thomas
Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:17:08 GMT

> @bobmcalpine > β€œFor we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of good is not.” Romans 7:14-18 (and all the way to v25, really) Bob, are you making a case for continuing to sin and just remember to to confess it and ask for forgiveness? Or are you pointing out that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and therefore are in need of a savior to save them from the "bondage to sin" that Paul was speaking in the scripture above? There is a HUGE difference between willfully continuing to sin and unintentional sin. The priest is to make atonement before the Lord for the one who erred by sinning UNINTENTIONALLY, an d when atonement has been made, that person will be forgiven. One and the same law applies to everyone who sins UNINTENTIONALLY, whether a native-born Israelite or a foreigner residing among you. But anyone who sins DEFIANTLY, whether native-born or foreigner, blasphemes the Lord and must be cut off from the people of Israel. (Num 15:28-30) NOTICE: intentional sin is blasphemy. If we DELIBERATELY keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. (Heb 10:26-27)

Mike Rodriguez
Fri, 06 Jun 2014 13:48:32 GMT

I used to think for many years there was a difference in "willfully and unintentionally" sinning. But that is so far from the truth. We are human beings with a brain. We KNOW when we sin and it is ALWAYS "willful". To say it was unintentional is only our way of wanting to excuse the wrong that we did.

Bob McAlpine
Fri, 06 Jun 2014 14:40:11 GMT

It's interesting that you chose to ignore 1 John 1:8-10, Richard. In my mind that omission says volumes about the strength of your response. To address your point: Did David know it was a sin to have sex with Bathsheba and then have her husband killed? Were those sins "deliberate" or "unintentional"? I would argue that they were both extremely deliberate sins. How then could David be forgiven? And yet he was; "And Nathan said to David, 'The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.' " 1 Samuel 12:13b I am making the case that we all sin--even after our conversion. That's the point that Paul makes in Romans 7 and it seems to be John's point in 1 John 1. Calling someone a hypocrite because they have not conquered all sin in their life is fine. I might even agree in most cases. However. Based on your statement, both Paul and John are/were hypocrites. If that is the case, I will gladly wear the label as well.

Glenn Hansen
Fri, 06 Jun 2014 15:29:32 GMT

Joe B had to travel to Beverly Hills from Hollywood on business. Passing through West Hollywood, he stopped at a light. He noticed a guy dressed in a camo athletic support and combat boots, dancing lasciviously in a wide open gay bar. Bewitched by what he saw, he parked his car and went back to "check it out." He was greeted by some friendly guys at the door who offered him a drink on the house. He ordered cranberry juice over crushed ice with a twist of lime. Classic Stones music was playing. He headed for the restroom. One of the guys from the door approached him and groped him, then led him into the bathroom stall and performed an obscene act on Joe. He then left the bar and went about his business in Beverly Hills Joe didn't really know what to make of the experience. He continued going to church, paying tithe, participating in Sabbath school, and doing his personal devotions. He confessed to God and identified what had happened as sinful; however, he found himself drawn back to the same place week after week for a similar experience. Joe thinks about his situa tion but really doesn't know what to do but pray for victory, which is a long time coming. He continues his church attendance, devotions, and so forth. He knows it was a mistake to enter the bar in the first place. Is he a "hypocrite?"

previous