Joe, you are spot on. A “hypocrite” could technically behave consistently with what he proclaims while not really believing it. This is why Jesus referred to some hypocrites as “white washed tombs.” In the words of Bob Dylan:
“When the deeds that you do
Don’t add up to zero
It’s what inside the counts
Ask an war hero.”
This is why King David, though deeply flawed, was not a hypocrite. He really did believe adultery was wrong, but Bethsheba’s beauty could weaken even the strongest will.
Ironically, the real hypocrites seem to be Rachel Maddow and like-minded critics. For given their view of liberal autonomy and the sanctity of “personal choices,” it seems fair to say that they really do not believe that outsiders can condemn the judgments and private acts of others since Maddow et. al. do not actually believe there is one correct view of a rightly ordered life. Yet, Maddow and company do not hesitate to issue stern judgments about the inconsistency between the beliefs and the behaviors of people like Sanford, as if there was one correct view of a rightly ordered life. But, as we know, Maddow and company really don’t believe that. Consequently, they, and not their objects of ridicule, are the real hypocrites. It seems, then, from my vantage point that Maddow and company are opportunists who see morality as a wedge for political gain rather than as an end that ought to be pursued for its own sake.
None of this means that Sanford gets off scot free. The man is one strange bird. The only saving grace is that his Argentinian sweetheart may turn out to be a wise Latina. :-)
June 25th, 2009 | 10:22 pm
This is actually one of my pet peeves. By the way that the word hypocrite is used, it would seem to imply that all human beings are hypocrites, because we all sin. Isn’t the very essence of sinning doing something that we know to be morally wrong but which, because of our weak will, we do anyway?
June 26th, 2009 | 12:31 am
In the words of the good Doctor, Samuel Johnson, LL.D., M.A., “Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practise; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.”
June 28th, 2009 | 2:12 pm
Nope, can’t Joe’s accept your argument.
I believe Joe wants to swing from a thin rope to support Sanford’s actions, actions that cannot truly be separated from his highly vocal public square ‘moral-values’, ‘faith-based’ and ‘family-values’ rhetoric he showcased throughout his political career. King David wasn’t in a secular era, a time where the ‘eclipse of God’ is debated!
The media and the public now inspect “Christian” politicians, and believers under a microscope; the intensity of the character of their faith in now under a greater degree of analysis, as the fabric of the strength of the belief is under tremendous secular pressure. Pressure that unites deed and belief in the mind more now than any other time in the public’s mind.
To whip Maddow because she didn’t frame her case to ‘technical’ degree that suits your designs is to miss the train –the train that’s pulling away from the station of faith.
Joe swinging from a rope of ‘moral inconsistency’ might fly for a fairly silent believer, who got away not paying back owed debt, but, today, in this Post-Christian age, a powerful man voicing his faith, making public value judgments monthly … and then cheating on his wife, lying to his wife– with four children, leaving the country… What do you think the public is going to think of him???
If you want to be a Christian in today’s age, and be in the public spotlight, beware the public’s gaze and tune your talk with your actions, for today there is little room for ‘moral inconsistency’.
He refuses to step down, yet voted for the impeachment of Clinton saying, “I voted to impeach, because I think that, you know, moral legitimacy is one of the precursors to a legitimate legitimacy.”
From this angle, Sanford’s moral legitimacy is not only broken –but publicly contradicted, not by his affair, but by his own philosophy of moral accountability in the public square.
Joe, attempting to find some traction in stating that ‘technically’ he’s not a
For you all not to see this is sad.
June 28th, 2009 | 4:48 pm
Doug,
I think you’ve missed my point. The reason Maddow, et al., are going after Sanford over “hypocrisy” is because they don’t really think that cheating on his wife is an issue that should be of public concern. In their eyes, the affair was a “private matter” and it was only the fact that he thinks other people shouldn’t do what he did that is the problem.
You say you can’t accept my argument yet you spend the rest of your comment making my exact point. Sanford should have “tuned his talk with his actions” for the reason that it is the right thing to do—not in order to avoid being called a hypocrite.
July 3rd, 2009 | 6:57 pm
[...] has committed the unpardonable social sin. No, not adultery—is that even frowned upon anymore?— but the sin of being a hypocrite …. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact