Selective legal and moral rigidity on the part of others is too often the excuse on which people build their rationale for violating various legal and moral guidelines, whether in the secular or the spiritual realm. It’s a rationale that’s existed for ages. And it makes no more sense today than in times past.
In antebellum America, southerners often noted—with considerable truth—that many who condemned slavery seemed far less upset by the often brutal mistreatment of paid workers in the mills and factories of the North and of Europe. During the 1960s many culturally conservative parents forbade their children to experiment with recreational drugs like marijuana—while the admonishing parents often simultaneously held a cigarette in one hand and a glass of alcohol in the other!
But in neither case, nor in countless others we might mention, did the inconsistency of those condemning wrong make any less wrong the misdeeds being condemned. The ubiquitous presence of hypocrisy in the human experience, irksome and injurious though it has always been, doesn’t transform the bad choices condemned by hypocrites into good choices.
Jesus understood the tendency to make hypocrisy an excuse for ignoring particular moral principles when He denounced the selective morality of the scribes and Pharisees, who—among other things—“[paid] tithe of mint and anise and cumin” while omitting “the weightier matters of the law: judgment, mercy and faith” (Matt. 23:23). But Jesus was clear that this behavior on the part of the hypocrites in question didn’t mean the tithing issue deserved to be ignored, as He went on to say, “These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone” (Matt. 23:23).
Hypocrisy in the Present Pandemic
In the context of the present coronavirus pandemic, some have tried to discredit a number of safety restrictions imposed by various authority figures because, in some cases, those decreeing the restrictions haven’t applied them consistently or have been found at times violating the restrictions themselves. Intolerable as such behavior surely is, it hardly proves the restrictions in question to be unnecessary. It simply proves that fallible mortals remain vulnerable to hypocrisy and must accordingly be held accountable. Such accountability is a key feature of a representative system of government.
Some have expressed concern that in certain locations, facilities such as bars and restaurants haven’t been subjected to the same social restrictions as schools or houses of worship, or that in the early stages of the current pandemic, restrictions were imposed on the sale of gardening supplies but not on liquor stores. Without question, this kind of inconsistency should be pointed out, with appropriate correction demanded. But the uneven enforcement of such regulations doesn’t justify the knee-jerk “don’t tread on me” attitude of certain ones toward any restrictions on their conduct imposed by civil government, whether in the context of the present crisis or at other times.
In the Church Also
Of course, we’ve heard similar complaints within the fellowship of faith, including the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
For decades some have voiced objection to Adventism’s Bible-based opposition to the wearing of ornamental jewelry, less because of the Bible’s own statements on this subject (e.g. Gen. 35:4; Ex. 33:4-6; I Tim. 2:9-10; I Peter 3:3-4) than because of perceived hypocrisy on the part of others. A woman, for example, complains that while she can’t serve as a greeter in her church because she wears a pair of 99-cent earrings, the physician who serves as head elder drives a luxury car she could never afford. And what about the man who won’t buy his fiancée an engagement ring, yet instead buys her a diamond-studded watch?
And what of those who refuse to visit the local movie theater, yet who sample the same moral garbage on their home television set, computer, or DVD player?
The point in citing the above examples is neither to deny the reality of inconsistency in the way certain lifestyle standards are occasionally applied, nor to imply that the hypocrisy alleged in each of the above cases carries equal weight. Rather, the point is that hypocrisy on the part of one or more persons relative to any issue doesn’t mean the issue in question lacks validity. The fact that someone wears a diamond-studded watch while professing to eschew jewelry by not wearing an engagement ring, no more invalidates the Bible’s warning against bodily ornaments than did the selective moral zeal of some who condemned American slavery invalidate their moral objections to the practice of holding fellow humans captive.
Conclusion
The same is true regarding the social restrictions imposed relative to the present Covid pandemic. The fact that restrictions on religious gatherings, for example, having always been attended by comparable restrictions on such facilities as bars, restaurants, and casinos, doesn’t mean the restrictions themselves aren’t needed, or that they merit wholesale revilement as part of an alleged conspiracy to establish government control over people’s lives. Inconsistency is bad, most assuredly. And when human government applies restrictions of any kind to its citizens, the uneven application of such rules is to be expected. None would argue, to be sure, that the state shouldn’t be held accountable when such inconsistency occurs. But this doesn’t give thoughtful citizens the license to discard or disregard such restrictions altogether.
I was saddened in the past few days to read an online article in which the author asked why her local church members should wear masks and practice social distancing as mandated by the local Conference, when that same Conference refuses to honor the decision of the worldwide Adventist body relative to women’s ordination. But since when, may I ask, do two wrongs make a right?
Seventh-day Adventists do the cause of their Lord no credit when they make incidents of governmental hypocrisy an excuse to join the stampede of certain ones wishing to trash common-sense regulations designed for the physical safety of fellow citizens. Though accountability should be demanded by the public so far as the uneven application of such rules by the authorities is concerned, such hypocrisy on the part of government doesn’t mean the rules themselves aren’t needed. In both the church and society, some of the best and most needed standards of conduct can be tarnished by the inconsistent advocacy of those who either adhere to such standards or seek to enforce them. Such hypocrisy merits correction, pure and simple. But it doesn’t make the standards themselves invalid.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan