Back to Basics Meals

Cheerleaders Run Amok in Texas

High Gas Prices Crunch Congregations

Albert Mohler on the Questionable Authority of Archaeology

Detachment from Possessions as a Sign of Maturity

Liberty Revisited: A Remembrance

Gas and God: What Faith Has to Do with the Pump

Parents Behaving Badly and Sports

Why Should Food Culture Be Left to the Left?

Escaping an Abusive Relationship

Whenever a Christian or conservative is discovered to be involved in some activity his critics believe he shouldn’t be, you can be sure the charge of hypocrisy will be leveled instantly. We’ve seen it time and again, yet almost never are such accusations accurate. Instead, these claims rise from a misunderstanding about the nature of hypocrisy and the conviction that the only real moral failing is a lack of “authenticity”.

True hypocrisy is rare. The English word “hypocrisy” comes from the Greek words for “acting” and “actor.” It means to wear a mask, to seek to convince others you are a particular kind of person in order to pursue some ulterior agenda. So a man who pretended to be a doctor in order to have access to drugs or money or anaesthetized patients would be a true hypocrite. He would be playing a part in order to pursue secret ends.

The word is almost never used this way in popular parlance. Instead, it is used to mean someone who believes in moral standards even when he himself falls short of them.

We saw this clearly during the 2006 Ted Haggard debacle. Haggard, who had taught a biblical view of homosexuality and drug use, was exposed as having bought drugs and sex from a male prostitute in Colorado.

When the news broke, Haggard said, “I am a deceiver and liar.” Indeed, he probably was. He was not, however, a hypocrite. He was not merely pretending to be an evangelical preacher in order to gain advantage over others, or to bring harm to the church.

It is perfectly possible to believe, as Haggard likely did, that one’s action is immoral even while in the middle of committing it. Believing in a moral code we sometimes fail to live perfectly does not make us hypocrites; it makes us normal, morally inconsistent sinners.

Not only do such failures not make us hypocrites, they also don’t invalidate the moral principles we believe. Christian theology teaches that we all miss the mark. We all fail to hit what we are aiming at. Our failure, however, does not mean the target isn’t real. The moral truths Haggard taught as a pastor were not dependent on him, but on what God has revealed as His will for human lives.

From time to time, public figures will be accused of being hypocrites even when their behavior is not obviously immoral. In 2003, Bill Bennett was mercilessly labeled a hypocrite when his habit of gambling in Las Vegas came to light.

Gambling, while perhaps not a wise use of resources, is not inherently wrong. The news of Bennett’s activity served as ammunition for his liberal critics to smear him with the “H” word. They acted offended. As if they were repulsed by such a loathsome activity as playing blackjack.

Rather than offer a reflective examination of the moral issues involved in gambling, many in the media used the occasion to attack Bennett, not because he had violated God’s unchanging moral expectations, but because he had been discovered doing something THEY thought he shouldn’t.

And that is the real point. Calling someone a hypocrite is one of the most powerful weapons the Left has at its disposal. Many are eager to use it regardless of whether the word applies.

Unfortunately, even in those cases, it is sometimes effective. In a culture that prizes “authenticity” above all and values “being true to yourself, no matter what others think,” being cast as someone who has denied his true nature and put others down because they refuse to do the same cripples one’s public influence.

The assumption on the part of our Leftist detractors seems to be that thinking you know what is and is not moral is the only immoral act. What’s more, they posit themselves as watchdogs of this new morality. They, we are assured, know what is truly right and wrong and are gravely concerned about moral issues. Still, we know otherwise. We know, in the end, they are only pretending.

Coming to Terms with College Debt

De-Meaning Human Dignity

Asking a Woman’s Father for Her Hand

Remembering Tony Snow

Harriet McBryde Johnson: An Appreciation

Advice to Christian Apologists

The Fear of Not Having Had

Family Dinners Good for Parents, Not Just Kids

AMA Wants Home Births to Be Illegal

Teen Pregnancies Up for the First Time in 15 Years

It is now commonplace for people on both sides of the abortion debate to give lip service to the idea of working together to reduce the number of abortions performed. More and more in discussions of this issue, even people who claim to be pro-life will say the continued emphasis on criminalizing abortion is misguided and that we ought to pursue other strategies. Those of us who believe abortion must be made illegal are told our unwillingness to abandon our demand for legal protection for the unborn signals we “don’t really care” about the issue. If “really cared,” we are told, we just would accept the murder of the defenseless as a political reality and start adopting kids.

There are numerous problems with this argument. Three of the most substantial are its failure to understand the role of law, its function as a ruse that pro-aborts use to protect their interests, and its appeal to naïve pro-lifers seeking to ease the cultural tensions around this issue.

The Law Is Important

No one believes criminalizing abortion would mean no one would ever have an abortion again. People will do what they want even if it is illegal. No one thinks laws will change the heart in any ultimate way. Even so, there are plenty of reasons to continue pursuing laws against abortion.

First, the law functions in a society to shape the beliefs and convictions of its citizens. Most people, especially in an increasingly secular society like ours, believe that what is legal is moral, what is illegal, immoral. When government allows for legal abortion, most people see this as permission, an announcement that abortion is now moral. By revoking this permission, the nation’s leadership would do much to slow the abortion rate.

The law also dissuades some would-be criminals through fear of punishment. Some of those who seek and perform abortions would refrain from such action simply for fear of being caught and punished. No one thinks these motives are noble. No one thinks the law, by itself, can inspire moral living. However, the law, through its implicit threat of punishment, restrains some who otherwise would commit violence. Such restraint ought to be applied on behalf of the unborn.

Consider this example. As a culture, we have agreed that we want to reduce the number of elderly women murdered. Most everybody thinks killing grandmas in cold blood is bad. So, we seek to reduce the number of grandmas killed. The number one way we do that is by making killing grandmas illegal. Anyone who argued that we ought to seek to reduce the number of grandmas killed while at the same time making their murders legal would be seen as contradictory at best. Everyone knows that making the murder of grandmas legal would lead to more dead grandmas. So, as a society we build a legal bulwark of protection around their lives. To fail to do the same around the lives of the unborn is unconscionable.

We Want to Protect Babies, Not the Pro-Abortion Lobby

The argument that pro-lifers ought to stop the fight to see abortion made illegal and focus on other strategies for reducing abortion is a favorite among pro-aborts. From the moment Bill Clinton declared abortion ought to be “safe, legal, and rare”, they have been pushing it.

They like it, of course, because no other strategy for reducing abortion threatens their livelihood. Abortion is a big bucks business. Criminalization would cut off their cash flow. So they urge pro-lifers to drop the legal and political campaign. They want us to focus on what they recommend as good ways of reducing abortion: comprehensive sex ed and the easy availability of contraception.

The problem is that neither these strategies does much to stop the flood of abortions. Pro-aborts know this, and so their urging us to stop fighting to criminalize abortion and work together to reduce the incidents of child-killing is ultimately self-serving.

Their ostensible desire to work together is undermined by their actions. While they insist they desire to join forces, to find common ground, the only way to do this is if pro-lifers give up their legal campaign. What have pro-aborts offered to give up in the interest of working together? Nothing. They continue to press for unrestricted access to abortion. To demonstrate their good faith and honest desire to join forces, I suggest Planned Parenthood take half the 300 million taxpayer dollars they received in 2006 and donate it to Operation Rescue. The day they do that, I’ll believe they want to work together.

Desiring to “Reduce Abortions” Is Really about Reducing Cultural Tension

It’s easy to see how the idea that the protracted cultural battle over abortion has been really off-base can be appealing. The idea that abortion might be an issue where compromise is possible, where the lines that divide people might not need to be so stark, is attractive because if it were true there might be another way forward. If it were true, maybe we all could get along.

It’s not true. The issue is life or death. The choice is about killing babies or not killing them. The struggle is between those who are willing to accept a society where the murder of the weak is deemed acceptable and those who are not; between those who believe every life deserves legal protection and those who believe such protection ought to be reserved for those who meet certain criteria.

Many pro-lifers want to escape the unpleasantness of a polarized society. The idea of dropping the legal campaign against abortion and retiring to less public and controversial work seems like a way out. Unfortunately, so doing would be a huge mistake and a neglect of our duty.

Instead, we must take heart and continue the fight though it is wearisome. Compromising now would lead only to a shallow peace, and a shallow peace is no peace at all. We must suffer yet more blows, must accept no outcome but victory. The blood of so many little ones compels us.

Though celebrity memoir is not a genre to which I devote much reading time, I picked up Rosie O’Donnell’s 2002 book “Find Me” because I recalled a reviewer I respect giving it words of praise.

The slim volume did not disappoint. The narrative weaves together scenes from O’Donnell’s childhood and the story of her growing involvement over the phone with someone she believes to be a pregnant 14-year-old rape victim.

O’Donnell reflects on the impact of her mother’s death, her drive to become famous, and the emptiness of celebrity. In between, we learn O’Donnell’s mystery girl turns out to be something other than what she seems.

O’Donnell is almost always obnoxious in her television performances and readers will find much of the same attitude in this book. Those who can tolerate such an attitude will see a portrait of a confused, damaged woman trying to be honest about the struggles she experiences, as well as read a good story. Recommended.

The Effects of Pornography Addiction

More than Half of Women Have Had Sex with a Married Man

Get Married, Young Man

The Troubling History of Planned Parenthood

Saving Money at the Grocery Store

Concerns for a New Generation of Christians

Mtv’s Great Series “True Life” Celebrates 10 Years.

Seven Vital Characteristics of a Man

Why Are There Fewer Babies to Adopt?

Movies and Morals