Few objections to Christianity feel as compelling, or as emotionally charged, as the charge of hypocrisy. History is filled with examples of people who have claimed the name of Christ while living in ways that are cruel, abusive, and morally reprehensible. From corrupt religious leaders to scandal-ridden churches, the failures of professing Christians have caused many to conclude that the Christian faith itself must be false. At first glance, that conclusion can seem reasonable. After all, if Christianity is true, why do some Christians behave so badly? Yet this objection raises a far more important question: Should the truth of Christianity be judged by the imperfections of its followers, or by the truthfulness of the claims upon which the faith is built? Before dismissing the Christian God because of the sins of Christians, it is worth considering whether the hypocrisy of the messenger actually has any bearing on the truth of the message.

A Hypothetical Concern

“There is no way I could ever believe in the Christian God. The reason is simple: Christians are hypocrites. For instance, my neighbor used to talk about Jesus all the time, but then he would turn around and beat his kids! But even worse, the Crusades were some of the most barbaric periods in the history of the world, and, as you know, Christians led them! That is why it has not surprised me that all this news is coming out about churches and child molestation. I can confidently say that if there is a God, He is not the Christian God.”

An Apologetic Response

If a county judge regularly sentences criminals for driving under the influence and is later arrested for driving under the influence himself, does that make the law against drunk driving invalid? Of course not! The law is still the law regardless of who broke it. The judge’s moral failure exposes the hypocrisy of human nature; however, it does not invalidate the law he swore to uphold. This is the exact logical error a person makes when he rejects Christianity based on the sinful behavior of Christians. The moral failure of the Christian messenger doesn’t change the truth of the gospel message.

This ideology given from the argument presented here has a huge problem! Instead of examining the truth that Christianity holds to, this argument attempts to disprove it by bringing up the flaws of those who profess that religion. It takes the attention away from the main concern in the first place (the validity of the Christian God) and focuses on human inconsistencies. No one should refuse the principles of law and order because a certain judge is corrupt. The law is the law, and the truth is still the truth. Truth should never be determined based off the character of those advocating for that ideology, but rather by the framework that their truth is built on.

So then, if Christians believe that God truly does exist, that Jesus became man and died for the sins of man, then the determining factor for the validity of Christianity must be based on those types of historical Christian claims. Did Jesus actually exist? Did He actually rise from the dead on the third day? Are these claims contained in Scriptures historically reliable? These are the types of questions that should be asked. While there is a necessary amount of faith needed, this faith can be grounded in the fact that history and archaeology repeatedly confirm the people, places, culture, and traditions that are recorded in Scripture. Howard Vos provides political and social evidence of what life would’ve been like during Judea’s Roman rule; the gospel undeniably supports the historical claims he found to be true. (4) This is one of thousands of pieces of evidence that support the existence of Jesus, which would then strengthen the case that the men God used to write the pages of Scriptures were actually recording real life events.

It is undeniable that the behavior of Christians can affect their testimony in a powerful way. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for appearing righteous unto men yet being full of hypocrisy (Matthew 23:28) (1). Jesus accurately saw through the facade and exposed the sinful condition of the heart. David Sorenson explains how the Pharisees were often utterly corrupt morally, spiritually, and ethically all the while remaining in good standing as an observant Jew. (3) This is the exact behavior that Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, strongly condemned. Peter was rebuked by Paul because of his own hypocrisy (Galatians 2:11-14) (2), which shows that even genuine and sincere believers can fail to live aligned with the truths they profess. These Biblical examples go to show that hypocritical behavior is condemned by Christianity itself, not ignored or excused.

In Conclusion

It is clear that man’s sinful being naturally is hypocritical. And while this truth can negatively affect a Christian’s testimony, the Bible has always condemned such behavior. Therefore, the shortcomings of Christians can never serve as evidence for the basis of rejecting Christianity. The moral transgressions of the Christian messenger do not alter the truth of the gospel message.

Sources:

1. King James Version Bible, Matthew 23:28
2. King James Version Bible, Galatians 2:11-14
3. Sorenson, David H. Understanding the Bible Commentary: Matthew Through Luke. Northstar Ministries, 2008.
4. Vos, Howard F. New Illustrated Bible Manners & Customs. Thomas Nelson Inc. Publishers, 1999