Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? (Mt. 7:1–3, ESV)
I serve as an adjunct instructor in philosophy at a local community college. Of late, I’ve been teaching World Religions, a course that many students take to satisfy a humanities course requirement for their degree. While many take the course out of necessity, some actually express interest in religion. Some even appear to be committed religiously themselves, whether Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, or otherwise. But I would describe the preponderance of them as nominal followers of a childhood faith, or as Nones, that is, “no religious affiliation.” Yet they all seem to have at least one thing in common: They despise religious hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is a diverse phenomenon. While we could identify many examples of saying one thing while doing another, let’s distinguish two related but distinct forms of hypocrisy. A first form is the standard version in which a follower of a particular religion asserts a principle, truth, or moral precept (presumably taught by their faith), while ignoring that principle, truth, or moral standard when push comes to shove. Maybe one finds himself in a position where maintaining the courage of his convictions is inconvenient or may bring ridicule, embarrassment, or professional loss. Or even more basic, a person is compromised by an egregious sin. Let’s say a believer (perhaps a religious leader) is caught in adultery. Regardless of the circumstance, this manifestation is the main form of religious hypocrisy that probably comes to mind for most people. Inconsistencies in one’s life reveal inconsistencies within the heart, the ultimate source of hypocrisy.
A second form of religious hypocrisy is related to the first, but it’s the one my students seem to have as much distaste for and frustration toward: cherry-picking. Call it “buffet spirituality.” I’m referring here to choosing selectively which elements of a religion one will buy into from the outset. I’m surprised that this phenomenon bothers irreligious students. One would think that standard-fare hypocrisy would be distasteful enough.
While Generation X, Millennials, and Generation Z have often mixed and matched elements from various faith traditions, I’m noticing that more of my students—at least more than I would have imagined—have less respect for the Muslim who prays three times a day instead of five, the Jew who doesn’t keep Kosher, the Christian who makes loud assertions about religious liberty but doesn’t attend worship, or the Catholic who believes in heaven and purgatory but not hell. These inconsistencies are related to the first kind of hypocrisy but slightly different. While people have their own reasons for their choices, it’s sometimes nothing more than the inconvenience of wholehearted devotion to one’s stated religion. And of course, this largely engenders similar scorn from skeptics.
Inconsistency Matters
We shouldn’t be surprised that moral or intellectual inconsistencies generate distrust, disdain, and disrespect from people. Choosing to be a person of faith, an intellectual, or both, is a decision to stand for moral and metaphysical principles. It follows that we talk about these, write about them, spread them, and try to persuade others of their validity and value. But there is a cost.
Jesus, sometimes characterized as a “free-love, do-gooder, judgment-free” sage, was of course nothing of the sort. His calls to “judge not” mean something quite different when we study the context of Matthew 7 and the broader use of the krima/krino word group (judgment/judge) in the New Testament. Simply put, “judgment” means different things in different places. Certainly Jesus warns about a hypocritical, judgmental spirit in Matthew 7. But to what end?
“With the measure you use it will be measured unto you” sounds ominous. The standards we apply to others will be applied to us, so be careful which standard you use. Yet who will be doing the judging? Scripture teaches that Christ will judge both the living and the dead (2 Tim. 4:1), and that we will all appear before His judgment seat (Rom. 14:10). But I don’t think either are what Jesus meant here. The logic of that interpretation is this: Jesus will judge us based on the standard by which we judge others. “Great! I’ll judge everyone less severely, which will result in less judgment for me.” But is that how God judges?
A more coherent interpretation makes all the difference to our public witness for Christ: We will find ourselves judged by our neighbors in the same way we have judged them. So judge carefully. The speck in their eye won’t be too appalling whenever the log in yours is knocking people down.
Identifying Inconsistency
These scriptural cautions are especially relevant right now for two main reasons: First, with the prevalence of social media and the ubiquity of media coverage (available 24/7); and second, with the tumultuous dynamics of 2020 still with us, everyone is at the mic. It’s there, or at least we feel pressured to speak into it. There’s so much to comment on! And even if you don’t feel that pressure individually, having others who speak for you (officially and unofficially) heightens the sense that many eyes and ears are on us. What do they see and hear?
This is an especially vulnerable moment for our churches. Everyone’s passions are heightened, and the moral impulses that God implanted in every human heart refuse to ignore perceived wrongs around us. People are wrestling with the tensions between the “mental health epidemic” that public health officials have decried for years, alongside the widespread counsel of the same officials to stay home, away from loved ones and other human beings, away from work and school, for an uncertain period of time. Such counsel may strike some as inconsistent, leading them to doubt its sincerity. This interpretation is especially plausible when some of the loudest proponents of stay-at-home orders themselves refuse to stay at home.
Politically, many candidates campaigned on one set of principles, and then began operating by a different set once elected. This is nothing new, of course. But we all find it unsavory and infuriating when calls for “principled, courageous leadership” are followed by the complete opposite, kowtowing to the most vocal voting bloc. Of course, voters aren’t above these “tensions” in their positions either.
And no discussion of inconsistencies would be complete without considering mainstream journalism. Indeed, words like “unprecedented” and “controversial” apply to one set of political policies, while the inverse set of policies are dubbed “historic” and “bold.” (Which adjectives would you prefer to describe your preferred policies?)
Yet the church looms largest in my mind. I fear that many of us have told ourselves that our churches were doing a good job on personal growth, spiritual formation, and discipleship because we talk about them a lot and have solid curriculum and teachers, but then a pandemic pushed everyone’s life online. Suddenly, politics, Netflix, and Amazon Prime seemed to matter a lot more to many Christians than reaching out to those in distress (and this is quite aside from the issue of those vacationing, shopping, and having large family gatherings, while remaining absent from worship services due to “safety concerns”).
Inconsistency Explained
Such examples may strike some as cringe worthy, yet they point to things that we see, hear, and feel. And I think they do have some bearing on the church’s ability to form sincere disciples in this present evil age. First Peter 4:17 reminds us that “it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” Finger-pointing won’t profit us rhetorically, politically, and certainly not spiritually. Grievance is a powerful political tool, but it doesn’t help people see Christ. We can’t claim to be motivated by high-minded arguments about principles if we’re busy sweeping our own hypocrisy under the rug. At the very least, inconsistencies have to be scrutinized honestly and accounted for truthfully—to each other, yes, but to the world as well.
We must also be charitable, for not all apparent inconsistencies in our brothers or our neighbors are actual hypocrisy. We need to resist either/or thinking since it’s possible to hold a belief but to express that belief differently than someone else. As someone who once aspired to political office and who follows politics closely, I confess that I’m willing to give legislators a little bit more leeway than many because the legislative process is complex. (Making a campaign promise, even when it’s sincerely meant, still requires circumstances to allow one to pass those policies.) Yet ultimately we must apply the same standards to “our side” that we apply to others, especially when comparing words, deeds, and what they may reveal about motives.
Sometimes perceived inconsistencies are just that: perceived inconsistencies. But when we perceive inconsistencies, we tend to demand confession and repentance—from unbelievers and believers alike. More urgently, when others perceive inconsistencies in us, that inevitably leads to situations where our witness is potentially compromised. God, help us to be sure that the moral and intellectual certitude we have in our heart and on our lips doesn’t leave us with our foot in our mouth when Jesus returns.
Recent Comments