I'm going to comment on a post by Arminian theologian Randal Rauser:
One of the things I appreciate about Rauser is that he's so reliable. You can always count on Rauser to offer a morally obtuse evaluation of a serious moral issue. You can set your clock to his predictably muddled moral understanding. In a world like ours, it's so refreshing to have someone that dependable.
The allegation is that Kim Davis is a hypocrite. Some people have defended her on the grounds that she's only been a Christian for four years.
In addition, she's not a Bible scholar or theologian. In that respect, it's stilly to hold her to the same standard of theological sophistication as a professional Christian ethicist.
But suppose, for the sake of argument, that she is a hypocrite. In my experience, one infallible test of people's moral discernment, or lack therefore, is how they frame issues of hypocrisy.
Let's take a comparison: suppose a DA vigorously prosecutes child pornography and child prostitution. Suppose it turns out that the DA is a consumer of child pornography.
That undoubtedly makes him a hypocrite. But does that mean he shouldn't prosecute child pornography and child prostitution?
Conversely, suppose you have a DA who is consistent. He doesn't consume child pornography, and he doesn't prosecute child pornography or child prostitution. There's no conflict between what he says and does in public and private. Is that an improvement?
It is better for a hypocritical DA to do the right thing–because it is the right thing to do–than it is for a DA who is not a hypocrite to refrain from doing the right thing. Consistency can be more immoral than inconsistency.
In addition, it is not hypocritical for me to support a hypocrite who happens to be doing the right thing. I'm not supporting his hypocrisy. Rather, I support the action.
You can approve of somebody's action without approving of the agent. Even very bad people can sometimes do good things.
It's not a double standard for me to support the actions of someone who's guilty of double standards if they happen to be applying the right standard in that situation. Sometimes a hypocrite will inconsistently to the right thing. Should I oppose their action in that instance unless they do the right thing all the time?
Suppose I'm in a country where gov't corruption is rife. Suppose I need to bribe an official to get an innocent relative out of jail. If I can get him to do the right thing, even though he did it for the wrong reason, that's preferable to his acting consistently, when that means consistent wrongdoing.
Now, we can debate the actions of Kim Davis on the merits. And that's a worthwhile debate. But that's obscured by the hypocrisy canard.
As a rule, I have more control over my own conduct than I have over the conduct of others. I'm not responsible for the lifestyle choices of Kim Davis. That doesn't rub off on me.