Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 124 - What if you are the hypocrite?

This week, our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to sections 49-50.  We discuss receiving bold correction, removing hypocrisy, and embracing the light.  Study with me!

Anchor.fm:

Soundcloud:

https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-podcast-ep-124-what-if-you-are-the-hypocrite

Youtube:

Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 021 - Jesus Curses a Tree

This week the Come Follow Me curriculum covers Matthew 21-23, Mark 11, Luke 19-20, and John 12.  We focus on the Matthew chapters, discussing Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the time that Jesus curses a fig tree, failed attempts to trap Jesus, and hypocrisy.  Come study with me!

Soundcloud:

https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-ep-021-jesus-curses-a-tree

Youtube:

Satire: This judgmental guy from the Book of Mormon proves unkind orthodox members are wrong!

<Satire>

Dear Weekly Standard,

I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints all of my life, and so I know first-hand about the unkindness that comes from some of the more orthodox members of the church.  Like the Pharisees in the scriptures, they are all hypocrites when it comes to living their religion... focusing only on the law, and not on the mercy and love that should be present in our communities.

Just last week, I came across a passage in the Book of Mormon that really resonated with me, because it talked about how damaging this type of person is.  Of course, I've read parts of Mosiah before... mostly the verses in chapter 18 about mourning with those that morn and comforting those that stand in need of comfort... but I accidentally read a few pages earlier in the chapter and came across one of these orthodox religious types.  I think this provides a good lesson on how to handle this sort of situation.  I started in Mosiah 12.

So first off... just like some of these DezNat types, this guy comes in (in disguise of course because he's a coward) and starts nitpicking about the behavior of other people... you know "...this generation, because of their iniquities, shall be brought into bondage..."  Like, dude, why don't you look at your own life before you start harping on others!

Then he incites violence against people.  He singles out one progressive leader that he hates, and says that his life will be "...valued even as a garment in a hot furnace." Obviously, this is a dog whistle to rile up the alt-right against people who don't live up to their standards.

So then, this guy is approached by the government leaders.  They respond in a really rational, calm, and down-to-earth way... because, like, if it were me, I would've wanted to punch him in the face like the nazi he was.  They went straight to the kind parts of the scriptures... listen:

"How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings; that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good; that publisheth salvation..."

So calm, so peaceful, right?

And then he goes straight for this self-righteous "if ye keep the commandments, ye shall be saved... have ye done all this?  I say unto you nay, ye have not.  And have ye taught this people that they should do all these things?  I say unto you nay, ye have not."  I mean, the brazen unkindness and judgmental preachiness just gets under my skin.

So I guess in the end he gets what he deserves and gets burned alive.  That's almost poetic isn't it?  Because he was saying that was going to happen to the guy he was attacking, right?

So yeah, even in the Book of Mormon that these right-wingers in the church use all the time... this guy... what was his name?  Yeah... Abinadi... 

He can serve as a lesson to them about what happens when you don't use kindness.  Checkmate judgmental Mormons!

Sincerely,
Evan B. Haram

</Satire>

Satire: Point Counter-Point on how to treat people who disagree with us

<Satire>

Point: We should be tolerant of people who disagree with us (Perspective presented by Bishop Moss, an ecclesiastical leader and progressive social media activist)

Not everyone has the same preferences, opinions, or orientations... And that's OK.

I was talking to a guy who uses an anonymous account on twitter, which is understandable because of his unpopular stance... You see, he is a practicing homosexual.

Certainly, this type of activity goes against everything that my faith, that the prophets, that the apostles, that the scriptures, and that Jesus himself taught regarding marriage.  In spite of this, I feel compelled to speak up in defense of this individual.  His feelings are important, and he is a real person, in spite of the way he hides behind a clever alternative nickname and smiling picture on social media.

Jesus said to love our neighbors, so doesn't this count?

What's important is that we embrace the things that make us different than us, because we are all children of God, and we can all try harder to be like him.

Even those who don't share my faith should feel loved and welcomed for who they are, for as long as they seek to associate with me.  And even if they reject every teaching of my church, I can't imagine not forgiving them or wishing them anything but happiness.


Counter-Point: We should relentlessly attack people who disagree with us (Another perspective presented by Bishop Moss, the same guy who gave the point)

Not everyone has the same preferences, opinions, or orientations... And that's NOT OK.

I was talking to a guy who uses an anonymous account on twitter, which is inexcusable because of his unpopular stance... You see, he thinks that it's OK to be modest.

Certainly this type of activity is in line with everything that my faith, that the prophets, that the apostles, that the scriptures, and that Jesus himself taught regarding how we should present ourselves.  In spite of this, I feel compelled to speak up and mercilessly and repeatedly berate and condemn this individual.  His feelings don't matter, because he's not even a real person; he's using a dumb fake name stupid Lego figure picture on social media.

Jesus said to love our neighbors, but he's not very neighborly, so he doesn't count.

What's important is that we ridicule anyone who has views that are different than progressives, because even though we are all children of God, some of us are more like him than others.

Even those who share my faith should be exposed and humiliated for who they are, for as long as they seek to promote principles that I like to ignore.  And even if they apologize for defending legitimate teachings of my church, I can't imagine forgiving them or wishing them anything but hellfire.

</Satire>

Hating Hate and Hypocrisy

I recently came across an article that condemned the mantra "love the sinner, hate the sin."  There were several compelling reasons behind the main idea.  Here are some of the highlights

• Jesus never said it, instead he said "love thy neighbor as thyself." (Matthew 22:39)
• Loving the sinner has a condescending tone that implies superiority of self over "sinner"
• It is difficult for many people to separate sin from sinner... allowing hatred to fester and spread

Each of these reasons has some legitimacy.

Jesus taught that anger with someone else led to great danger (Matthew 5:21-24).  He personally showed great compassion to individuals that were condemned as sinners (Luke 19:1-10, John 8:1-11).  He frequently preached the importance of mercy, forgiveness, and kindness.

Jesus taught humility.  Consider the account of the prayers of the Pharisee and the Publican in Luke 18:10-14.  The Pharisee prided himself above the Publican because of his greater diligence in keeping the law of Moses.  In spite of this, the humble prayer of the Publican "God be merciful to me a sinner" brought justification to the sinner and not the Pharisee.  As Jesus taught: "For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 14:11)

Human nature tends to lead people to do ill.  Undoubtedly, this contributes to Jesus's analogy of the camel going through the eye of a needle (Matthew 19:24), or encouraging his disciples to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow him (Matthew 16:24).

I certainly do not wish to take away from the value of these ideas.  I do, however, want to point out the problem with this type of thinking.  Consider the following hypothetical dialog:

Person 1: We should stop with the "love the sinner, hate the sin."

Person 2: Why?

Person 1: Jesus never said it, instead he said love thy neighbor.

Person 2: He also said "My house shall be called a house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves" as he threw sinners out of the temple.

Person 1: Yes, but he loved them!

Person 2: But perhaps not their sins?

Person 1: Well, calling people sinners implies superiority.  You should let God judge!

Person 2: So you're saying that calling people sinners is a sin?  And that people who do it are sinners?

Person 1: No!  I'm saying that we're not supposed be hateful!  I'm saying that if you allow hate in your heart for sin, how can you say there is no hate in your heart for those who sin?  We're supposed to love!

Person 2: So it's wrong to hate the idea "love the sinner, hate the sin."  Right?

Person 1: I don't hate it, I just want it to stop.

Person 2: Because it is sin?

Person 1: No, because it's hate!

Person 2: And hate isn't a sin?

Person 1: No, it is...

Person 2: Just a sin that bothers you more than other sins?

Person 1: Well, when you put it like that...

There exists a group of people who pride themselves on their refusal to judge... except for those they feel are judgmental.  They pride themselves on loving their neighbor, unless they believe their neighbor doesn't love other neighbors the right way.  

The hypocrisy of condemning Pharisee-like adherence to a moral code based on behavior because it does not conform to a different Pharisee-like adherence to a moral code based on tolerance should be obvious.  In spite of this, I am still surprised by people who do the equivalent of point their finger at someone and shout "You're judgmental, and that makes you bad!"

Calling for an end to "love the sinner, hate the sin" seems to be a well-meaning plea, but it is misguided.  Though there is great value in loving neighbor as self... the first and great commandment is to love God.  The best way to do this is to keep his commandments.  Jesus was very clear about this in all of his teachings, but perhaps no where more than in his admonition "If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15)  When an individual has failed to keep a commandment, repentance is necessary.  (Matthew 4:17)  While a person who has sinned is still worthy of love, respect, and mercy, the counsel of Christ to the woman caught in adultery is applicable to all: "...go, and sin no more."

While there may not be any single method that is universally helpful in persuading individuals to make better decisions, and it is true that there are some methods that are counter-productive, there is nothing wrong with seeing sin for what it is.  It is OK to say that murder is wrong.  It is OK to say that a person should honor their marriage vows.  It is OK to say that theft is criminal.  It is even OK to say a person should not be judgmental.  In doing so, it is possible that you are "loving the sinner and hating the sin"... but that is OK too.

Loving the sinner and hating the sin is most beneficial if done introspectively.  This is exactly what Paul was expressing in Romans 7 as he declared "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."  (Romans 7:15)  Recognizing the need for improvement... recognizing the seriousness of sinful behavior... this can be good if it leads a person to God.  

Even when done in the context of helping another, it can be useful.  This is what Christ implied with his parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son. (Luke 15)  

Certainly there is a degree of hypocrisy that a person acquires when they suggest that other people might need to do better (since the same is true for everyone).  Still, Jesus inspires missionaries, apostles, and prophets to encourage people to change and improve. (Matthew 28:19-20)  As much as some may hate the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin," it is a perfectly appropriate way of thinking about the responsibility of Christians everywhere, not just to love their neighbor, but to understand that both they and their neighbors need Christ.

What Type of Marriage Discrimination Will Gay Marriage Advocates Continue To Support?

I have seen many rainbow picture profiles on Facebook and many "love wins" sentiments after the 5-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in which they used the 14th amendment to discover a "right to marry."  There are numerous legal reasons why this move represents a dangerous precedent, and how wrong it is for justices to find "implied rights" are more important that explicitly stated rights (such as in the 10th amendment).  For those that have interest in the legal side of this (or those who claim that defense of traditional marriage is indefensible), reading the dissents of the four justices who did not support this finding is illuminating.

I am not going to repeat the legal reasons that this supreme court ruling was bad.  I want to focus on something more emotional, and far more common.

It is no secret that I have vehemently opposed gay marriage.  In response to the points that I have made, I have been told the following:

• That I "probably don't have a lot of gay friends"
• That I have a phobia of homosexuals
• That I am a bigot
• That I am hateful
• That I don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That I might be gay myself if I am "threatened"
• That I am fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That I am encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That I am being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

The list is not comprehensive, but it never ceases to amaze me how many accusations are made about any person who believes in traditional marriage.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to be married, the question I have for gay marriage advocates is whether they plan to extend these rights to everyone.  (This is a rhetorical question, I don't want you to tell me about it, I want you to actually open your mind to the consequences of "love" "winning.")

Take for example the polygamous group.  (Now before you say that this is a straw man argument, and no one is advocating for it, read this article)  So if seven people decide that they are in "love", how can a person say that they should be denied the right to marry?  Obviously not because we adhere to a standard of traditional marriage.  If you are opposed to polygamy, let me suggest the following reasons:

• That you "probably don't have a lot of polygamous friends"
• That you have a phobia of polygamists
• That you are a bigot
• That you are hateful
• That you don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That you might have polygamous desires yourself if you are"threatened"
• That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

Take for example the biological brother and sister that have fallen in love, but that the state will not issue a marriage license because they are related.  If marriage is a right, then who are you to say that being related should deprive a person of this right?  If you still disagree that incestuous relationships should be able to have legal recognition in the form of marriage, may I suggest the following reasons that you believe this:

• That you "probably don't have a lot of incestuous friends"
• That you have a phobia of incest
• That you are a bigot
• That you are hateful
• That you don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That you might have incestuous desires yourself if you are"threatened"
• That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

Take for example the man that has fallen in love with his pet dog.  They would like to make their love officially recognized in the form of marriage.  Who are you to say that the dog doesn't love its owner.  I have spoken to many vegetarians who insist that animals have all the same feelings that humans have, and that the most important of those feelings is love.  Who are you to say that this type of relationship is "not natural."  For thousands of years the majority of civilization believed the exact same thing about homosexuality (and many still do.)  Just because Leviticus 18:23 says "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion" doesn't mean anything.  After all, the Bible also forbids eating pork or women speaking in church, so you can't accept everything in the Bible... right?  Certainly this form of "love" may not be traditional, but the man has a right to be married, and if you try to discriminate against the form of his love, it can only be because:

 

• That you "probably don't have a lot of animal-loving friends"
• That you have a phobia of human-animal relationships
• That you are a bigot
• That you are hateful
• That you don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That you might have bestiality desires yourself if you are"threatened"
• That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

Take for example the forty-year-old man that has fallen in love with a twelve-year-old boy.  The boy says that he is happy with the man, and who are you to say their relationship is taboo?  Of course, the boy may not be an adult, to which traditional marriage relationships typically are limited, but tradition is not the basis for love anymore, right?  It's only love.  Nothing else matters, right?  And who are you to say that the boy is not capable of being in love?  If young people are not capable of love, then are you advocating banning relationships in high school between students who are under the age of eighteen?  No more "cutest couple" in the year book, right?  Your "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" is not allowed.  There are no gay teens, right, since they are too young to understand or participate in sexual activities, right?  Or perhaps you truly believe that "love" should win?  Perhaps the pedophile is just another "non-traditional" relationship that has been negatively stereotyped by society.  No?  Then perhaps you say this because:

• That you "probably don't have a lot of pedophile friends"
• That you have a phobia of pedophilia
• That you are a bigot
• That you are hateful
• That you don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That you might have pedophilia desires yourself if you are"threatened"
• That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

If you are a gay marriage advocate, you may be tempted to let me know about how these ideas are totally different than those of gay marriage.  You may be tempted to shout "slippery slope" or "no one is going to advocate that" or "straw man" or whatever else makes you feel better about the fact that you believe (as I do) that there should be some discrimination in who we permit to marry.  Please, before you begin sending me messages about how awful a human being I am... consider for just a moment that perhaps gay marriage advocates are not so very different from the traditionalists, cake bakers, and people of faith that many of them tend to demonize.

If the reasons for why you might be opposed to bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and other unnatural relationships are not accurately represented by the bullet point lists... then consider for a moment the possibility that the reason I am opposed to homosexual marriage may not be accurately represented by these things either.

Additionally, if you have thrown "traditional marriage" out the window as a valid reason to discriminate against other unorthodox types of unions, consider for a moment the actual reasons that you are opposed to them.  Examine why you believe that some types of unions are not good, and should not be condoned by society.

It is my earnest hope that perhaps, in the moment when you struggle to define why it is OK to discriminate against some marriages, that you will see that advocates of traditional marriage are not the demons they are painted to be.

Don't get your shorts in a knot... Understanding and modesty

Recently, I have seen a lot of heated discussion regarding a blog post called FYI (if you're a teenage girl).

On one hand, there are many individuals that are grateful for encouraging girls to cover themselves, and express understanding for the mother who wrote the post, who desires to help her sons avoid lustful thoughts and urges.

On the other hand, I have read comments from people who are upset with calls for modesty because it blames girls for the impure thoughts of boys, and teaches boys that they just can't help themselves.

The term modesty has become a item of debate as well.  Among religious people of many faiths, modesty has represented a method for dressing, particularly for women, such that they minimize any provocative aspects of their appearance.  There have been many individuals that have pointed out that this understanding of modesty is a stretch from the root of the word, which implies restraint and humility.  The concept in this case is that modesty represents how an individual views himself or herself rather than how others view them.

One side of this debate emphasizes the effect of provocative styles on men.  There can be little doubt that seeing women in skimpy outfits affects men... otherwise there would not be a pornography "industry".  Lingerie makers, fragrance producers, and other clothing designers also seem to depend on women noticing the effects their products have on men, and implying that the results are tied to ownership of these goods.  Anyone who has attended high school knows that men are willing to part with money, invest time, and provide service for girls that catch their attention.

The opposing side points out that women are being held guilty for an effect they may not intend or of which they may not even be aware.  It is also plain that men who are guilty of sexual predation cannot be held guiltless if their victims were wearing revealing or otherwise provocative clothing.  Men must control their own impulses.  Additionally, the concept of being provocative is relative.  One person may be aroused by seeing bare shoulders while another remains completely unaffected.  If the line is to be drawn such that no one is remotely aroused ever, then should all people be required to wear large burlap cloaks or dress as Benedictine monks?

Of course, on the other hand, sexual harassment lines are already defined by the perception of the victim as opposed to the intent of the perpetrator.  An innocent pat on the back or a shoulder rub can be forms of sexual harassment if they are unwelcome.  The same can be said of lewd discussions, displaying racy images in the workplace, or the wearing of tight, revealing, and/or otherwise provocative clothing.  Individuals that create a hostile and/or uncomfortable work environment for coworkers are directed to alter their appearance, behavior, and/or speech to accommodate the well-being of others, and people generally understand that such laws and policies are appropriate.

The question then becomes this: at what point do these standards become inappropriate?  If a behavior is unwelcome or a lack of consent exists, does that make it wrong?

If consent is not important to defining what is acceptable, then by what standard are crimes such as rape condemned?

Certainly, the issue of modesty is difficult, if not impossible, to define explicitly.  At the ends of the spectrum, most people agree that exotic dancers may be dressing to be seductive, and nuns are dressing to cover themselves, but middle ground seems shifting.  What one believes is modest, another finds provocative.  One person can be distracted by something they find revealing while most others find it tasteful and appropriate.

To add to the confusion, individuals on both sides of the argument seem quick to use argumentative language.  In response to modesty, one side will use the term shaming.  This term calls into question the motives of those that are asking for sensitivity, which ironically, is a form of shaming.  On the other side, calling someone a slut for the way they dress is attempting to shame or guilt trip them for failing to conform to standards they may not understand or share.  Name calling and questioning the motives assumes the worst about others, and generates most of the unnecessary heat in these debates.

It should not be hard to understand that a person who did not intend to do anything wrong does not want to be made to feel as though they did.  It is absolutely hypocritical to be insensitive while trying to get someone else to be more sensitive.  It is also hypocritical to try to get someone to feel guilty for requesting sensitivity by accusing them of trying to make others feel guilty.

Ultimately, men, women, and children are better protected from complicated, expensive, and dangerous situations when sexual relations are kept between husband and wife.  All people have responsibilities with respect to this.  For women, it means being aware of how their appearance affects others.  For men, it means getting out of situations that might impair judgment or integrity.  For parents, it means protecting their children as possible from influences that might steer them toward irresponsibility. (See The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

Ideally, no one would become defensive or take these discussions personally, and the benefit of the doubt would be given.

If someone tells you that your cleavage is showing, is it possible that they are not intending to make you feel bad, but they are genuinely worried about the effect it has on others, or how it might affect you?  What is the right way to tell someone that their appearance is making you feel uncomfortable?

On the other hand, is it possible that a person wearing a tight outfit is unaware of how much of their body shape is visible?  Is it possible that a person is not wearing something to try and seduce all the men in the room?

In other words, be sensitive in how you dress and how you treat others.

Let your hypocrisy so shine before men

In Jesus Christ's most famous sermon, he declared "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:14-16)

In the following chapter, Christ seems to completely withdraw this concept in favor of being secretive in doing good to avoid hypocrisy:
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.  And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." (Matthew 6:1-8)

These two concepts seem mutually exclusive.  On the one hand, God wants people to openly stand for what is right by doing good publicly... on the other hand, God wants us to hide our good deeds to be rewarded for them, and to avoid being as the hypocrites are.  How can Christians reconcile these two points?

These points seem especially important in the field of missionary work.  Every Christian has a responsibility to witness for Christ.  Consider the words in the New Testament: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." (1 Peter 3:15-16)  Also, these words from the Book of Mormon that expound on the commitment made in baptism: "...and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God..." (Mosiah 18:9)  Also, contemporarily, consider the words in the Doctrine and Covenants: "Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor." (D&C 88:81)

If Christians follow the advice of Paul to Timothy when he said "be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity." (1 Timothy 4:12), how can we simultaneously heed the words of Christ to do good in secret?

More to the point, how can a Christian ask someone else to follow Christ when they themselves are guilty of not following him as well as they should?  Did Christ not repeatedly and vehemently condemn such hypocrisy?

The answer is that he did condemn such hypocrisy.  The Pharisees were frequently subjects of such condemnation.  They openly prayed, gave alms, and fasted... which were all things that God had commanded.  Christ pointed out that they paid tithes, but devoured widows' houses and tolerated swearing by altar, as long as they did not swear by the gifts on it. (Matthew 23)

Of course every person that encourages someone else to make correct choices except for Christ himself takes on a degree of the same hypocrisy that Christ condemned, because every other person is guilty of sin.

Fortunately, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, even hypocrites can be saved.  Avoiding hypocrisy is not a valid excuse to put one's light under a bushel.  

Consider the parable of the talents.  (Matthew 25)  The servant that had received one talent hid it in the ground for fear of losing it.  When the Lord returned, he was displeased with the servant.  He had not given that servant a talent to be buried away... but to be used.  I suggest that the talent is symbolic of many things, and that one of them is knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The word gospel means good news... and news is meant to be spread, not to be buried or hoarded away.

Additionally, Christ declared that the greatest commandments were to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves. (Matthew 22:37-40)  When we arrive at the judgment bar of Jesus Christ, can anyone imagine that he would be pleased with those who refuse to share the message that cost his life and the lives of his Apostles?  Can anyone suppose that a valid excuse for withholding knowledge that could bring peace, hope, and joy from others would be "I wanted to avoid being hypocritical"?

I do not believe that God wants people to wait until they have eliminated every flaw before they share the basics of the gospel of Jesus Christ with others.  Of course, in connection with sharing the message that Jesus has power to save everyone, Christians are obligated to do all they can to eliminate those aspects of their thoughts, words, and deeds that are unchristian, but fulfilling the obligation is not prerequisite to sharing the message.

Furthermore, sharing the message of Christ does not require a Christian to loudly pray in restaurants or malls, or to announce their charitable contributions, or to babble in tongues before large audiences, or even divulging every personal spiritual experience.  There are some experiences that are intended to emphasize the personal connection between an individual and God.  Christ's power is not extended to the children of men to make them look good... it is extended to save them all.

The thing of which a Christian can be sure though, is that every person that they will ever meet has need of faith, penitence, and ordinances as prescribed by God.  The thing of which a Christian cannot be sure is whether others already know this, or whether they may need some encouragement.  Whether offered by men or God, it is a divine effort to make bad men good, and good men better.