The Redhunter

David Frum summed up my thoughts earlier today on a post on his blog over at NRO, so I'll just quote him:

A sensational but to-date unsubstantiated allegation has been hurled at a major American religious figure. On much of the left, the reaction is gleeful delight: See! He is no better than anybody else!

In my mind, however, this story highlights a widespread moral assumption that I have never been able to understand.

Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.

One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.

The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

After all, the first man may well see his family and church life as his "real" life; and regard his other life as an occasional uncontrollable deviation, sin, and error, which he condemns in his judgment and for which he sincerely seeks to atone by his prayer, preaching, and Christian works.

Yet it is the first man who will if exposed be held up to the execration of the media, while the second can become a noted public character - and can even hope to get away with presenting himself as an exemplar of ethics and morality.

How does this make moral sense?

Let me put it another way:

In every other avenue of life, we praise people who rise above selfish personal wishes to champion higher principles and the public good. We admire the white southerners who in the days of segregation spoke out for racial equality. We admire the leader of a distressed industry who refuses to ask for trade protections and government handouts. We admire the Arthur Vandenbergs and (someday) the Joe Liebermans who can reach past party feeling to support a president of the opposing party for the sake of the national interest.

If a religious leader has a personal inclination toward homosexuality - and nonetheless can look past his own inclination to defend the institution of marriage and to affirm its benefits for the raising of children - why should he likewise not be honored for his intellectual firmness and moral integrity?

"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self."

I thought that he was so right that I sent him the following email

David

You are dead right in your comments and analysis.

We live in an age in which all too many people, especially those in the media, consider hypocrisy to be the worst of all sins. To these elites, one who does wrong and encourages wrong is not as bad as the person who tries to do good and encourages others to do good, but who occasionally succumbs to temptation.

Thus Hugh Hefner and Larry Flint are usually given more respectful treatment than a Christian minister who even once has fallen into sin. The former are "genuine", while the latter is a hypocrite. A strange world, is it not, when being "genuine" is held in higher esteem than trying to do good!

The result is that those who try to do good and encourage others to do so must live up to a standard of absolute perfection lest they be subject to the worst sort of ridicule.

But we shouldn't really be surprised. We see in our daily lives how people who go out and do things they oughtn't, like excessive drinking, mock someone who doesn't if that person does the least wrong thing in some other area. The reason for this is simple; it makes the mockers feel better about their activity. As you put it, they say "See! He is no better than anybody else!"

Regards,
Tom
(Strange, for some reason MT is combining everything into one giant paragraph whenever I try to indent (blockquote) my letter. I'll figure it outlater)

The bottom line is that hypocrisy is a bad thing but it is not the worst thing.

It is indeed difficult to strive for virtue in the face of so many who would mock you for the least failure. But I learned a long time ago not to live for the approval of others.

Previous
Hate and Self-Satisfaction

Here are two excellent articles on the subject of hypocrisy with which I agree
The Secret Files of the Anti-Hypocrite Squad by Jonah Goldberg
Hypocrisy!” he cried by Ramesh Ponnuru