Folk wisdom is that “people in glass houses should not throw stones.”
Like a lot of folk wisdom this is true, but easy to abuse if it is viewed as the “final word” on the subject.
The message seems to be that stones will often get thrown back causing mutual destruction. If you point out problems in others, beware having your own problems exposed.
That is fair enough as far as it goes, but taken out of context it can easily turn into an aphorism for total inaction. Since everyone lives in a glass house, nobody is going to want to “stone” anyone . . . ever.
And if stoning sinners were the only option for dealing with sin, all of us not now in the Taliban would agree that starting any rock throwing is a bad idea.
As it is often (mis-) used, the saying suggests that any criticism of a person’s morals is “stoning” them . . . as if there is no difference between public condemnation of bad morals and the death penalty.
Pop (mis-) usage also assumes that somebody out there is not living in a glass house morally.
That just seems wrong.
People who are trying to live good lives in their “glass houses” (while improving) are left oddly powerless.
What should people in glass houses do with neighbors intent on destroying the neighborhood?
Assuming there are only stones and “glass houses” around . . . then it might be sensible to throw stones quickly at some neighbor who is already destroying houses before he gets to ours.
Since on moral issues everyone lives in a glass house, then stones must be thrown from such residences with the humble acknowledgment that all flesh is glass.
Perhaps it is better to avoid speaking in glassy metaphors and just deal with the issue of non-hypocritically talking about morality in the public square.
One Bad Approach
All of us fall short of high standards. If we want to avoid any trace of “hypocrisy” as it is now defined, then we might avoid high standards altogether in any area where failure is likely.
There are areas where public moralizing is safe, but only for sins nobody much wants to commit.
We can, for example, safely have high standards about people killing people. Most of us are not tempted to kill our neighbor, so moralizing about it is harmless fun.
We have quietly given up on loving our neighbor. If we say that we should, then it is too easy to show areas where we do not. Better to just ignore our neighbor and hope the government will start a program to deal with what neighbors used to do.
The new “good Samaritan” is the government bureaucrat.
Americans reward ambitions, even failed ambitions, in business, but often sneer at them in morality.
Of course, the person who is not open about their temptations and sins deserves what he gets. A man could think the higher pleasures of romance are best while still being tempted by base desires.
Almost all of us think moderation in food is good, but few live up to the standards. The culture has provided the temptation of gluttony to almost everyone. Few can resist turning eating into something it is not and as a result we are fat and plagued with eating disorders.
It is hard to be moderate in a wealthy culture. Most of us fail in one area or another and so we hope that if we do not judge someone in their area of failure, then we will not be judged in our own.
This might be a good rule if they effects on our souls or bodies did not stick around. Fat hurts our bodies, even if we get new clothes and sexual sin scars our souls even if we get the societal approval we crave.
It is even worse (so bad we don’t mention it in polite religious company) that our sins are an affront to a Holy God.
I watched a sermon on television last night where the pastor argued that our “weaknesses” made us less than we were. We had the “power within us” to be better.
True enough for a Christian, but the intellectual equivalent of announcing that one’s property values are plummeting while failing to point out (and even studiously avoiding the fact) that this was due to the on-going nuclear attack of the neighborhood.
Some pastors act as if motivating us to act in our self-interest will make hell vanish.
Since even some pulpits have stopped worrying about God’s ideas, we might give up on public moralizing altogether. Even the phrase “public moralizing” sets our teeth on edge! If there are eras that enjoy it, it is not our own. We simply assume that anyone who opens their mouth to moralize is a hypocrite and tune them out.
This is too bad. As the attack of smoking has demonstrated, public moralizing does have an impact. People feel differently about smoking than they once did. Fewer people light up and they do so with greater care. Many of us did not like it (hating all public moralizing), but repeating “smoking is wrong” while showing why it was wrong enough times worked. Many lives were saved.
Some Advice from a Sinner
So what can we do about our immoderation and public moralizing?
First, we have to be blunt.
Being immoderate about pleasures is a sin and God hates it. It is bad for us physically and spiritually as a kind of bonus of badness. (Of course, the two problems are entirely related!)
Second, we cannot wait for angels to attack it or try any other dodge. The temptation is to make a “you-pick-on-my-vice” and “I-will-pick-on-your-vice” rule.
We might hope that only fit people will attack gluttony and chaste people will attack sexual deviance. We could shape our condemnations to avoid our temptations.
But surely it is hypocritical (the horror!) not to point out that a fat family values senator and a libertine fitness-buff senator have similar sin problems.
We are a culture of immoderate people and there are few of us that should not “preach from our weakness” and not our strength. The history of the Church also demonstrates that the best sermon on a vice (Augustine on sexual temptation or Mike Huckabee on gluttony) comes from a sinner who has made real progress against his old vice, but still struggles with the temptation.
So what to do? Here are three suggestions.
First, anyone tempted to public moralizing should admit it if he struggles with the sin. If he doesn’t struggle with the specific manifestation of the problem, then he should be honest about any related struggles. Gluttons should admit that their gluttony is not so different from a gamblers use of money in some ways. This admission need not be detailed, but is important.
However society will have to accept that many of us hate sin because we have personally seen the harm it can do. It is no hypocrisy for a former drug abuser to oppose drug abuse.
I often must speak as a redeemed sinner out of the sad knowledge of the sinfulness of sin.
Second, Christianity is a religion of love. Our goal in “public moralizing” is to uphold God’s standards, commend the reasonable life, and bring others to the truths we have found. We must avoid, when we can, “final judgments” that do not allow for healing, hope, and restoration.
We use every tool we can to help men and women avoid pain in this life and hell in the life to come.
Finally, we have to accept the fact that not everybody will agree with our standards. We have reached them through our best use of reason and experience, but others will disagree. In a free society that is their right and someone’s morality will prevail. If we prevail we should leave as much room as possible for dissent.
Public morality must be upheld, but in the least coercive manner possible.
We all live in glass houses and we are trying to get rid of dangerous stones.