A full definition of hypocrisy is rarely heard and when that definition is meticulously spelled out, it invariably raises a few eyebrows, such is the disparity between the common, scaled-down view of hypocrisy versus what it fully is. One of the reasons for this surprise is that hypocrisy is not a sin but is in fact, three sins and all three must be committed to complete the descent into hypocrisy's abyss.

 

Too often hypocrisy is posed with only one or two of those sins in play and in so doing, the dark power of the meaning of hypocrisy is diluted, and the cumulative threefold sin is emasculated. This essay will identify the three sins that must be committed — in tandem — for one to be guilty of hypocrisy. Yes, to be a true hypocrite, one must be a triple sinner. First, a little background on the misguided bandying about of the term:

 

The Church as Exclusive Franchisee of Hypocrisy

 

How often do you hear despisers of the church complain about the wall-to-wall hypocrites therein? Have you heard the tattered and well-worn rationale for avoiding church and church people? — "Too many hypocrites!" — as if there are no such offenders in the idyllic outside world. Are we to understand that the church, and religion in general, are the sole proprietors of the sin, or is something sinister going on with this sweeping institutional slander?

 

To charge that the church either invented hypocrisy, or is the foremost distributor of the ill goods, is bigotry. You will hear that imbecilic slur come from hatemongers only. All reasonable people, whether churched or not, instinctively realize that hypocrisy is one of the evil step-sisters of the besetting set of humankind: pride. To attempt to sequester all-consuming pride solely within the walls of the church is such monumental nonsense that the only reasonable motivation one can ascribe to that base attempt is hatred.  

 

No one can guilelessly cull the church out of society as some kind of expert in the hypocrisy field, thus implying that church people have a corner on the market. Admittedly, the church is guilty, to wit: hypocrisy exists in only two places on earth: the church,.. and elsewhere.

 

Certainly the church has its ample quota of hypocrites, but no more so than politics, the media, the arts and entertainment world, the sciences, sewing circles, garden clubs, Moose and Elks lodges, and any random cross section cut from the wide cloth of society. Hypocrisy is everywhere there are humans who are beset with pride and keeping dark secrets. The three sins that make up the composite evil of hypocrisy underscores that the church cannot have a monopoly on production, in that these sins are the ubiquitous and infamous failures of all humankind and not just church folk. 

 

What off-base perception is it that feeds into the attempt to drape the albatross of hypocrisy largely upon the church's shoulders? Apart from simple ill intent toward the church (see the essay on "Rage"), part of the problem has to do with the misdefining and reductionism of hypocrisy. If the sin is merely defined as people claiming to be religious while acting against the principles of their religion, then we can look for hypocrisy in religious places only, but that is not the height and breadth of it. Hypocrisy has nothing necessarily to do with religion or places that specialize in the housing of pious people. It has everything to do with humankind in all places and at all times. It is a sin from the depths of depraved human nature and is not reserved for the exclusive use of the officially pious; the impious and unchurched are also masters of hypocrisy.

 

The Triumvirate that is Hypocrisy

 

Sin No. 1: name a sin,.. any sin. You cannot be a hypocrite if you have not first committed a sin, that is: in the case of the church, you have offended some biblical principle. In the case of the outside world, this means you must have done something unethical, immoral, unkind, illegal, ill-intended, or you have otherwise failed to maintain a good and blameless character. If you are sinless and never do or say anything wrong or injurious to another, you need read no further: you will not be able to commit the other two sins, and you will not attain unto hypocrisy.  

 

The other two sins to follow are predicated on the fact that you have a wrongdoing to your credit; you have failed in some moral, ethical, legal, or biblical way. You have done something perhaps to another that, as the Golden Rule admonishes, you should not have done, and are therefore guilty of a wrong that reflects badly on your reputation and character. In plain language, this means you have something to hide if you are unwilling to come clean and instead want to preserve, by stealth, your good name. The first sin is... some sin,.. some breach of ethics,.. some moral failure,.. and usually one that is shameful.

 

If we stop here then the sin of hypocrisy must be reduced to simply being human. There are no sinless and blameless people on earth. Holy Writ says, "For all have sinned,.." therefore, logic tells us that hypocrisy must be more than being a functional wrongdoer. It is not sensible that the sin of hypocrisy can be diluted down to this too basic level. Hypocrisy isn't just "sin," it is a specific sin, and in fact is three specific sins joined at the hip,.. so to speak. We must then press on.

 

Sin. No. 2: 

 

You must refuse to acknowledge this sin or wrong that you have done, thus committing the sin of failing to enact this long list of proper remedies: come clean; own up to and admit your sin and failure; seek someone's or society's forgiveness; accept responsibility along with any legal penalties, or social backlash, or someone's personal disappointment; agree to make whatever just restitution that may be required; drop all pretenses of being better than you are. 

 

Doing something wrong and then trying desperately to keep the sin a secret is, alas, one of the time-intensive pursuits that keeps humans busy. The obvious reason for the second sin is to avoid responsibility, recrimination, censure, loss of status or position, and maybe punishment. One tries to hide the sin to preserve an illusion that one is innocent when in fact there is a guilty secret being kept. 

 

Thus far the two sins are: doing something wrong and being guilty, and then, trying to hide that guilt by keeping it a secret, and in this surreptitious act, one keeps up false pretensions of innocence. That people do this, is the human condition: we do not want our friends, and even worse, our detractors to know about our legal, moral, ethical and biblical failures.  

 

We naturally want to maintain a reputation that is unsullied, all the more to have greater ethical appeal. Ethical appeal gives our words more weight; it makes people listen to us and accept our advice and go along with our preferences. It enhances our status in society, the workplace, the church, or with an individual whose opinions and goodwill, we value. We tend to keep secrets in order to undeservedly maintain a good name, so that when that name is sounded, we net good results for our own purposes. We hide those things that we believe will harm us, and these desperate maneuverings are built into selfish pride and self-preservation. It is part of base human nature to perpetrate this masquerade. 

 

We certainly aren't having a lot of fun, but are we there yet? Have we arrived at hypocrisy by doing wrong and then hiding it, and if necessary, outright lying about our guilt? Is the full measure of hypocrisy doing wrong and then trying to hide from the consequences and shame of it? No, we are not there yet.  

 

Even if you include a whole litany of lies and false denials about the guilt, these acts are sins of cowardice; they are sins of failure to accept responsibility; it is the sin of pretense, and therefore, stolen righteousness; it is the sin of perhaps mucking up someone's healing process, which requires the guilty party's forthrightness and confession. It nevertheless is not yet the full measure of hypocrisy, which requires one more grievous sin to be committed, and perhaps one even graver than the original offense, or the secret-keeping about it. 

 

At this point, some may complain that this second sin, with all of its false posturing about being more innocent than is the case, sure sounds like hypocrisy! Isn't that essentially what hypocrisy is?... self-righteousness, when the pretense is false,.. and the claimer is lying in his/her teeth, and is not nearly as good as he/she is pretending to be? Not yet: it is two-thirds hypocrisy, which is not hypocrisy without the third sin. So far, this is nothing more than sinning and then taking the coward's way out by hiding from the consequences. This cannot be hypocrisy unless we are willing to so dilute the word as to make it, again, synonymous with being human: everyone does this rather continually. We all have secrets, and some of us have secrets we will never divulge until "all is revealed," which revelation, we hope, will be deferred until the next life. In this life, we hope to keep our darkest secrets.

 

Let's say we attempt to boost this paltry two-sin hypocrisy to full power by adding all kinds of exacerbating conduct to the secret-keeping; the guilty party pretends to have not committed a sin in the first place, but also if challenged, denies with a barefaced lie that he/she is the culprit. Are we at hypocrisy with the out-and-out lie? No: secrets, hiding, obfuscating, and bold lies do not complete the (tri-) cycle required of hypocrisy. So far, all the actions being taken are personal maneuvering around a secret sin. Hypocrisy is more than that: it is reaching out and touching someone else with evil intent. <— a big hint!..

 

Say the perpetrator — guilty but not admitting it — not only hides, and lies, and attempts to avoid ownership of the sin in question, but in so doing, adds drama and intrigue to the masquerade by puffing up to exalted heights of piety? Surely, with this disgusting display we have descended into the pit of hypocrisy, yes? No. Self-righteousness, high moral pretense, and strutting about like a panjandrum cannot promote the situation as it stands to hypocrisy. The third sin is essential and in fact, is what makes hypocrisy vile.  So far, we have pathetic cowardice, and people scrambling into hidey holes, and parading around in pious costume, but the really egregious sin to come, the third member of the evil trilogy, is what puts the putrid meat on the bone and gives us the composite sin of hypocrisy.

 

Higher critics of the faith and haters of the church wish this were the end-all of hypocrisy, in that, in their biased minds, high-minded moralistic pretense finds its full flower inside the walls of houses of worship. The reason?... I list the misconceptions about the church that account for the utter nonsense involved in making church people, and other people of faith, the foremost practitioners of hypocrisy:

• People in the church think they're better than those outside. Answer: complete bigoted drivel. My experience is that people in the church have a more dismal opinion of themselves than the average outsider, and this is due to a more complete knowledge of the human condition where it concerns sin before God. Indeed, lots of unchurched people think they are better than they really are. Most church people know better than to think such a preposterous thought. Why does this misconception live on?...it is natural, but misguided and ill-intended to promote religious people to puffed up poohbahs — all the better to knock them down, which is the prime purpose. This error of thinking is but setting up straw men. Church people, by and large, have an all too honest self-assessment, and any slander to the contrary is just anti-religious ranting.

• The church has more hypocrites than the outside world because the church actually teaches people to be hypocrites. Answer: claptrap; nowhere in Holy Writ is the craft of hypocrisy taught, and a cursory reading of the gospels will document Jesus assailing the Scribes and Pharisees (among others) for hypocrisy — and it was the full-fledged three-sin variety — with these chilling words: "Ye hypocrites,.. ye generation of vipers,.. ye whited sepulchers..."  No words from Christ are minced on the subject. Now if some marginalized and confused teachers in the church are instructing the congregation in the black arts of hypocrisy, that's another matter, but I have never seen this bizarreness, and I doubt that this weird practice is sufficiently prevalent to accuse the church of being seminars in hypocrisy. The reason for this misconception?... bigotry mixed with conviction of sin, and a morbid fear pent up in church haters that somewhere, someone inside a church may be a sincere and decent person.  Their worst fears are realized: there are non-hypocrites in the church that are good people — not perfect people — just people trying to do the right thing — and succeeding some, maybe a lot of the time.

• Unchurched people, nonreligious folk, people without a faith in a higher being, don't act all self-righteous and smug about their personal goodness. Answer: Good heavens!.. yes they do, but only all the time, everywhere and everybody. Reason for this misconception?... bigotry mixed with — guess what — self-righteousness and smugness. The Scriptures say it all: For there is no difference; for all have sinned and come sort of the glory of God." All souls, in and out and near the church, will likely own some measure of hypocrisy as they do the flesh on their bones. 

 

Come on now!...TV evangelists!...surely, there is a greater proportion of these odd balls — maybe 100% — that are dyed-in-the-wool, regulation hypocrites!?.. I mean, look at them: parading back and forth in front of the cameras, speaking in a pretentious southern drawl that is nearly incomprehensible, hair slicked back (or puffed up, or teased out, or coated with silver angel dust), and mouthing pieties to beat the band!...

 

Let's go through the above list in search of that third and defining sin: is it walking in a certain manner? Is it being telecast as opposed to being on radio, as opposed to not being on either? Is it implicated with dialectic speech, whether southern, northern, or Anglican? Is it concerned with audacious hairstyles, no matter how affected they may be? Is it mouthing banal pieties? No, none of these posterings are hefty enough to wear the mantle of the Third Sin, which — recall the former clue — must reach out to harm another person. None of the above can bring us to hypocrisy until the trifecta of sins is complete.

 

Are some TV evangelists hypocrites? Of course, in that they are not immune to the frailties of the human condition.  Are they all hypocrites because we can easily tune them in — without the trouble of traveling to a church and going inside? Those geographic logistics are not factors of hypocrisy, and being on TV isn't the third sin. If you ask, "Is it easier for a TV evangelist or preacher to fall into hypocrisy than the average non-broadcasted clergyperson?" I would say, only to the extent that celebrity and fame are always corrosive, but this is just as true for anyone who winds up in front of the cameras. If they cannot handle the fame it may well become notoriety, but even then, they must sin the three sins to be a genuine hypocrite; merely being famous and vain doesn't do it.

 

TV evangelists get a whole lot of undeserved hatred from hard-core skeptics and ragers against the church, but this is more a reaction to the evangelists' ubiquity, and perhaps their affected mannerisms, rather than any measurable quality that only accrues to them merely because they are tunable. I can even appreciate (to a very limited extent) what it is about TV evangelists that makes religious bigots and higher critics of the faith apoplectic. There they are right on TV — where they "don't belong" — And you can't get away from them like you can a church, which you simply avoid by not going there.  

 

Actually, you can get away from them by flicking the remote to another channel, but this does not pacify the God-haters: they want them gone from the medium.  Why?..."why do the nations rage?..." ...irrational and uncivil hatred of God and the people of faith, and this hatred is especially virulent if the Holy Joe is on TV as big as life, and trespassing in a rager's living room, spouting scripture, looking sanctimonious, and yammering about God and hell. This provocative combination will make the average religious bigot fall on the floor in spasms of spittle and unhinged hatred. I care not.

 

This curious digression into the volatile world of TV evangelists was for the purpose of making this point: hypocrisy requires the same triple sin from everyone, and simply being very visible in the public eye will not substitute for the requisite sins: there are still three of them, and each one is an essential part of the composite sin of hypocrisy.  No doubt TV evangelists do things wrong (meaning: something unethical, immoral, unbiblical, of bad character, unkind to others, treacherous, lecherous, etc.). Also, doubtless, TV evangelists try to hide their sins, like many not-so-visible-on-TV people. This still falls short of the cumulative sin of hypocrisy 

 

Finally: the Pivotal Sin

 

We are now to that third and deciding sin, which added to the other two, brings the offender into the clutches of hypocrisy. To reiterate, just before identifying sin no. 3, let us restate the case: Sin no. 1  — doing something wrong — does not make a hypocrite, but rather identifies a human being and hypocrisy does not automatically attach to all who happen to exist in human form on earth. You sin a sin, you are merely human, but you have created only the potential to be a hypocrite.

 

Sin no. 2: you don't want to own up to the sin; you fear loss of prestige; damage to your reputation; social repercussions; disappointing your loved ones; you may even fear losing a job or a position of authority. You can't bring yourself to come clean.  You haven't the courage to confess and accept the responsibilities and perhaps significant personal losses. You take the coward's way out and act as if you were as pure as driven snow. If accused or challenged, you lie about it — you weren't even there!  — much less did you do it!

 

You deny everything. In fact, as a defense mechanism (and not a very smart one, but you are in a panic!) you act even holier than you ever were in the first place, hoping that this ludicrous masquerade will convince any doubters that you are incapable of the sin in question. So, you wax sanctimonious and even go on TV and preach some. Are you a hypocrite finally? No. You are still in the simple human being category only now you have besmirched yourself with even more ignobility by lying, obfuscating, hiding like Saddam Hussein in a sewer hole, and taking the path of a coward.  

 

We have all lowered ourselves to this sorry state to some extent; I know this because I know what everybody instinctively and terrifyingly knows: if all, all of our secret sins were suddenly made known, civilization would crumble and people would be in the streets with torches and pitchforks. We all have secrets that only God knows. Sinners are not necessarily hypocrites, and secret sinners aren't either. But sinners with secrets who proceed to the third hell, become full-fledged hypocrites by committing this last sin:

 

Sin No. 3:

 

After (1) sinning a sin, and (2) secreting that sin in an attempt to escape the consequences, you then — astonishingly but predictably — (3) attack and persecute someone else for committing the same, exact sin. When you do this, you are more than a sinner (human being), or a secret sinner (a human being in hiding), you are a bona fide hypocrite (human being with a dark secret who has reached out to harm another); You are now beyond the pale; you have gone one giant bridge too far; welcome to the hypocrite's club. You may now take your hypocritical oath, vowing to do harm to others while protecting your own guilty self... over the same sin.

 

Likely, most readers here were not surprised at the identity of this third and coalescing sin that brings a sinner and poseur to full hypocritical heft: the open persecution of another for being guilty of the same sin that the persecutor is hiding from and lying about. If however, some were unsure or found the identity of this sin to be a revelation, I submit that after just a little reflection, it all makes perfect sense. This is indeed the logical sin that follows the other two into the grip of hypocrisy. To further delineate the evil body of this final sin, let us vivisect it:

• Even sans the propulsive power of the other two preceding sins, this third wrong, on its own steam, is slander and malicious gossip. To openly and publicly expose the sins of others, giving them no benefit of any doubt, no justice, and denying them any chance of restoration, is against all biblical principles. It is always an act of evil intent. For the full picture of the severity of this sin, see the essay, "Staying Alive in the Church," which lays out the full process of Matt. 18 (in four parts) for restoring a Christian brother or sister who may be guilty of sin. Blabbing the sin of another to the world is the antithesis of that biblical process. 

• This is not just a serious breach of biblical ethics regarding malicious slander, and the need to give discrete second chances to others, but it is also a sin committed in the very shadow of the slanderer's own hidden sins, which are the same sins now being shouted in public about another. This is the worst kind of slander possible. When one publicly accuses another of being guilty of the same sin one is hiding under the crinkled and rusty armor of false righteousness, this despicable act exponentially increases the evil power of that slander. Such actions cannot more egregiously destroy the process of Matt. 18. Likely, this sinful slander is also spouted with little certainty about the degree of severity, accuracy, or truth of the accusation. In other words, the hypocrite who descends to this third level of sin in the downward path to hypocrisy, is not a firsthand witness to the sin, therefore is not the rightful party to accuse. That accusation, in any case, must be made in secrecy (not out loud in public circles), thus preserving second chances and the possibility of forgiveness, reconciliation and full restoration. 

• By yammering in slanderous shouts the sins of others, the hypocrite is preoccupied with the wrong sins and the wrong sinner. It is him/herself that should be his/her focus, and all this muckraking is distracting the hypocrite from his/her only desperate duty: to clean one's own house and cease accusing others of a sin one has already taken to an exact science and hidden beneath a cloak of lies. The hypocrite is therefore zeroing in on the wrong target, and he/she needs either to make a personal confession, come clean, and accept all responsibility, or at the very least, maintain silence about others' sins, and in his/her secret hiding place, make a vow, and keep that vow, to sin that hidden sin no more.  

 

Hypocrites are, in the final tally, sinners who have decided to punish others, rather than themselves, for identical sins. This then is a hypocrite: a person who has done wrong, has hidden or lied about that wrongdoing, and then has gone after someone else for the same sin, while still cocooned in guilt and secrecy. You do these three sins, you are a hypocrite... and not before that last sin, but thereafter,.. until there is a change of mind, a proper regret, repentance, confession, recanting and righting any slander, being open, and finally, showing forgiveness. 

 

As a final note on the meaning of true hypocrisy, it may perhaps occur to some that, in this last sin, there must be degrees of egregious behavior, and as with sins in general. This is true. If the secret sinner attacks, not a specific person for that same sin, but rather the act of the sin itself, is this also hypocrisy?,.. and the answer is yes. It is de facto hypocrisy, but real enough. That it avoids slandering another person publically is a mercy to that would-be target, but it does not reverse the hypocritical momentum.  

 

Included in the ill pursuits in which a sinner in secret cannot indulge, is pontificating on those same sins, while he/she has not taken care of his/her own house. In fact, it would be advisable to refrain from any sanctimonious lecturing even after a house-cleaning has been completed, at least for a good while. There are others who should take up that sermon rather than that one who is more adept at committing the sin rather than advising others on it.  

 

Some may have an unsettling epiphany here: could we not make good guesses on which sins a pastor or Bible teacher is hiding by closely observing the wrongs he/she seems to avoid mentioning? I would say not. This kind of guess work is not productive nor praiseworthy for any reason, plus it is approximately as accurate a gauge for sin-snooping as mind-reading.  

 

How Not to be a Hypocrite

 

First, don't sin. Okay, that isn't a likely preventative measure so let's revise the admonition: If and when you do something wrong, if it's a wrong perpetrated on another person, go to that person and defuse that sin by confessing it and getting forgiveness and a second chance, all swathed in secrecy. This will assure you will never end up drowning in hypocrisy: the sin is taken care of and the descent is halted. 

 

If the sin is of a general type that harms only you and your reputation, and/or harms society as a whole, own up to the sin before the proper forum, be that your pastor, a trusted friend, or in legal situations, the authorities. Again, this will put you in the right place for forgiveness and a fresh start, with no secrets. Hypocrisy cannot be in your future in this forthright case. Hypocrisy is always committed in the shadow of dark secrets, therefore, no secrets: no hypocrisy.

 

If you cannot bring yourself to confess this sin, and you are determined to keep it secret, or even lie about it if necessary, to not blow your cover, at the very least, use this time to instruct yourself how to avoid repeating the sin. Confess it to God. Seek His forgiveness and future strength. If you have harmed some other individual, you will be guilty of a continuing sin by not bringing healing to the other. Therefore, you will never be free of a sin against another while that person is being neglected and left undone and unhealed. If the sin belongs solely to your conscience, and you are determined to keep it hidden, then you must confess it to the Lord and refrain from any vestige of false piety. Secret sinners, if they must be so, are advised to be demur and self-effacing, in effect, hiding any immodesty as well as the sin. While self-righteousness is not yet hypocrisy, it enlarges the hypocritical mass by volume if and when the third sin is committed and hypocrisy rears its head.

 

If you are a sinner with a big secret, "big" is the operative word: keep your big mouth shut regarding the sins of others, and in particular, never assail someone for committing the same sin you are hiding from view. Of course, even if you have no secret sins on your back underneath a cape of false goodness, never slander another person publically, or behind that person's back for any reason under the sun. But especially, if you are secretly guilty of Sin A, then Sin A is a subject you are a failure in dealing with, so don't attempt to deal with someone else's Sin A: your portfolio of expertise is empty on the matter.  Avoid attacking others in this way and you avoid hypocrisy... even if you are a sinner, which we all are,..  or a secret sinner, which we all are sooner or later.

 

Michael Roy

 

Jan 1, 2015