
I discovered a fantastically insightful bit of language recently. I happened upon it while reading an article about political attitudes and the cultural climates they produce. It was an unexciting but necessary read, I can assure you.
The line I enjoyed (and will forever remember) was attributed to the American humorist Don Marquis. He wrote, “A hypocrite is a person who—but who isn’t?”
Do you get it? I do. Although, I don’t think the article writer understood its depths. He used it as superficial fluff to preface groups who vote contrary to what they actually believe. For example, a Christian who claims the Bible while voting for pro-choice candidates demonstrates a measure of dreadful duplicity. But Marquis’s words own a much deeper stratum, and the crafting of his sentence shows it. He started to describe a hypocrite’s particulars but suddenly stopped. The abruptness in his change of thought is what activates the tension. His point: There’s no use in singling out particular determiners that ultimately quantify hypocrites because, in the end, we’re all hypocrites. The identification process requires little more than a person pointing his finger, moving from person to person in a crowd while saying, “He’s a hypocrite. She’s a hypocrite. Those folks in the corner, they’re hypocrites. The man at that table, he’s a hypocrite.”
That’s about it.
In conservative Republican circles here in Michigan, “Rino” is the favorite synonym these days for hypocrite. It means “Republican in name only.” Supposedly, a Rino claims conservatism’s title while practicing ideologies that are anything but. Of course, the person wielding the accusation against a fellow conservative typically fancies himself or herself as one of conservativism’s divine emblems and subsequent protectors. The funny thing is, like the accused, they’re likely just a different shade of Rino. Give me a few minutes in a room with any of them, and I’ll show you how non-conservative they really are. This is especially true of certain Bible-wielding ones. I’ll give you an example.
Concerning the current division in Michigan’s GOP, there are a few folks online who scatter the title Rino around the conservative room like clowns throwing candy at a parade. These same people tout things like our nation’s Judeo-Christian founding, parental authority in schools, secure elections, and such. But then they start talking Bible stuff, claiming to be conservative exegetes of God’s Word and fixing their wild interpretations as underpinning to their conservative platform. They start talking about how this online prophet said this and that, or the Holy Spirit ordained that particular candidate, or this Bible verse is clearly talking about Donald Trump, and blah blah blah. By doing this, they’re doing what progressive liberals do with the Bible. They’re twisting it to mean and say things it simply doesn’t.
Another unfortunate but precise example: I saw a woman online—ordained as a pastor, no less—spouting off that she believed every word of the Bible was true right before wandering into a rant about Rinos in the Republican Party. She even made the point I made before, which is that no Christian can rightly claim the Scriptures and be pro-choice at the same time. On this, we agree. But what about the texts instructing that women ought not be pastors? There are quite a few. Must we maintain the pro-life texts but jettison these?
This is where the hypocritical rinocery begins. In these moments, so many start wiggling around, making room for their preferences. They refer to the texts as culturally and contextually limited, implying they don’t apply to the universal Christian Church. And by the way, lest we think they’re cultural or contextual, there is one text to rule them all: 1 Corinthians 14:33. Before Paul reasserts the point, he writes, “As in all the churches of the saints” (Ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων). In other words, his forbiddance isn’t limited to this or that particular culture or context. It applies to all Christian churches. This is to say, it is a doctrinal boundary that cannot be crossed.
The wiggling rinocery isn’t true conservatism’s tendency. Conservatism prefers to take from a text what’s inherent to it, whether it’s the Bible, the Constitution, or whatever. Progressive liberals are the ones who approach with the intent of shoving their preconceived belief systems into things. Look around. They’re everywhere. They’re the Christians telling you Jesus “gets us” no matter what we believe, do, say, think, or whatever—as if there’s nothing about us that might need changing. But Jesus didn’t say that. However, He did say there are sides, and you’d better be on the right one when you breathe your last (Matthew 12:30).
Returning to my original point, I suppose I’ll end with this—because I have somewhere to be in an hour.
These vociferous accusers may tip their hat and smile toward conservatism, and yet, just as Shakespeare spoke through the character Hamlet, “One may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” If Republican equals genuine conservatism, then everyone in the party is a Rino. I am. You are. And five minutes together in private to ask a few questions would likely prove it.




