I would agree with you. My guess is that Sproul is taking the word “full” (as in, ‘the church is full of hypocrites’) quite literally. So, I’m not sure he would object to the statement that “there are ALOT of hypocrites in the church”. My guess is that he would say “Of course there are a lot”.

But, again, I can’t quite follow your examples. Your illustration of premarital sex breaks down in numerous ways. So just because a couple sinned 20 years ago and had premarital sex they can no longer affirm its sinfulness today and remind other younger Christians to abstain? If they do is that hypocritical? Not according to the definition Sproul gave. Is failing to admit their prior sinfulness to everyone who asks also hypocritical (first off, who actually asks people that stuff? Have you ever walked up to a couple and asked if they waited? I certainly havn’t). Also, aren’t we specifically commanded by Paul to judge those inside the body of Christ (the answer is yes, btw). So, it seems you believe that a godly couple, who may have had premarital sex, is somehow forbidden from ever confronting a young Christian couple who is living in sexual sin lest they be charged with hypocrisy.

I do agree with you more than you know. The church has many hypocrites, just as it has many liars and those struggling with pride. But, the two examples you cited are the farthest thing from hypocrisy. I think Sproul is just trying to get us to use the word correctly and stop flinging it at anybody and everybody.

This isn’t a game. Accusing the church of being full of hypocrites is a deadly serious thing. It is an accusation against the Bride of Jesus Christ.

Sproul fully admits that churches are full of people who sin—he stresses that point in the article. But to say “the church is full of hypocrites” is a ludicrous as to say “the church is full of pedophiles” or “the church is full of adulterers” or even “the church is full of liars” True, some churches have pedophiles. Many churhes have adulteres. Most churches have liars. But to broadly characterize the church is comprising mostly of any of these (pedophiles/adulterers/liars) is unfair, untrue, and unethical. Sproul is simply saying the same regarding hypocrisy.

It is a dangerous thing when we begin thinking and speaking like the world (“the church only wants your money”, “the church is full of hypocrites”).

Do we really believe it is wrong to judge a single person, but ok to judge the entire Body of Christ?

The truth of the matter is that there still exist many people who call themselves “Christians” and “believers” in Jesus and yet show no evidence of the new birth, and act in ways totally contrary to how God actually desires us to live. They may not go to *your* church (though a few probably do), but they’re certainly out there. We can’t necessarily expect non-Christians to differentiate between *your* “Christian” church and the “Christian” church down the street with the philandering pastor? I find it disingenuous to make the kind of argument R.C. Sproul is making here, as if people are fabricating this objection out of nowhere.

Reminds me once at a school board meeting where an angry faculty member stood up and began yelling at me for pulling my kids out of school (I was an elected school board member and we decided to homeschool). He went on to say how much he loved and valued the school and chose to send his kids to the school and since I didn’t choose to send my kids I was a hypocrite.

Later (and privately) I said, “So, one of your values is having your kids in the school”. “Yes” he replied, “and since you don’t have your kids in the school you are a hypocrite”.

I asked, “How can I be a hypocrite for violating your values?”

We throw the word hypocrite around all the time without even taking the time to ask what it actually means.

A: A hypocrite is someone who does things he claims he does not do [via Sproul].

B: Lots of guys in the church look at porn.

C: Many of these same guys preach against porn, hide their sin, put on a happy face on Sunday, lie to their wives & friends about it if asked, and pretend like the problem doesn’t exist.

Therefore: Therefore lots of guys in the church are hypocrites.

That’s just one example, as I said. There are so many sins that every person is a hypocrite about something. Another random example — premarital sex. Almost everyone preaches about how wrong it is, but then if you ask them if THEY waited, you’ll see a bit of a blush on their cheeks. Not everyone, of course, but enough that many people are hypocritical about it. Now they might not claim they’ve never done it, but they certainly imply it and will have no problem judging you for it and looking down on others — for the same thing they did. To me, that’s hypocrisy.

There are dozens of things like this, and virtually everyone is guilty of being a hypocrite about something.

Then again, few people want to call themselves a hypocrite or claim the church is full of them. Maybe we can find a more spiritual euphemism for it.

How about… “I have an unspoken”? ;)

You still might not get them to raise their hands in a mass confession but there is a distinction between honesty and openness.

That would only count as hypocrisy IF the those men ACTUALLY claimed not to have a porn problem. If they have a problem, but keep silent about it, then that is NOT hypocrisy (though it is still a porn problem). Lots of guys would (rightly) admit that porn is harmful to the family, while secretly struggling with it. Because they struggle with it daily they know how harmful it is.

You can’t charge someone with hypocrisy for having a secret sin. Sorry, I’m just not getting your example. You seem to be saying:

Premise A: A hypocrite is someone who does things he claims he does not do [via Sproul].

Premise B: Lots of guys in the church don’t admit they have a problem.

Premise C: Lots of guys in the church think porn is bad

Therefore: Lots of guys in the church are hypocrites.

See the problem? Your premises don’t really work towards that conclusion. Premise B & C do not relate to Premise A.

This goes back to Sproul’s point: All hypocrisy is sin but not all sin is hypocrisy. Your example rightly points to sin, but wrongly categorizes it as hypocrisy.

Then says “[T]he the church is not filled with hypocrites” and “the charge that the church is full of hypocrites is manifestly false.”

So the church is not filled with people who do things they claim not to do? I find that highly unlikely based on my experience in churches. Hasn’t everyone been guilty of hypocrisy at one time or another?

Just take one issue — porn. If a pastor asked men to raise their hands if they looked at pornography in the last month, I doubt many (if any) hands would go up.

But polls show that 50-70% of men in churches look at porn. That’s a very high percentage. And these are men who would most likely claim that porn is bad and harmful to the person & family. Many are leaders in the church. Yet they actively watch it.

Doesn’t that count as hypocrisy? If so, wouldn’t that mean that churches are filled with hypocrites? And that’s just one issue. We haven’t even gotten into the “prayer chain gossip hotline” stuff. ;)