Yes, in this situation, this person is still a police officer. They are a *corrupt* police officer.<quoted text>
The point I'm trying to make, is that just because somebody says they're a Christian doesn't mean they really are. They may think they are, but their actions betray their words.
If a police officer makes a traffic stop and spots drugs in the car, he can arrest the driver based upon that observation. But suppose he doesn't arrest the suspect, but merely confiscates the illegal drugs and allows the driver to leave the scene. Now let's further suppose that this police officer then sells the drugs for his own profit when he's off duty. As presented, is our police officer worthy of being considered a police officer? He might wear the badge and uniform, and drive the car and respond to calls; but does this officer truly represent the essence of the motto "To protect and serve"? No he does not. His hypocrisy betrays his outward appearance, and stains the police profession as an institution of law enforcement.
Have you ever heard of the 'no true scotsman' fallacy? A Christian is someone who believes in the basic tenets of Christianity: the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection, the forgiveness of sins, etc. A person can believe in these things and still be 'corrupt' in the same way that a person can be a corrupt police officer.Likewise, a Christian who does not obey the tenets of Christian teachings (Love your enemies, give to the poor, care for the sick, etc, etc.) is not a Christian in the true sense. Such a person is a "pretender" which is the original definition of a hypocrite. These people must be seen for what they really are, and not what they claim to be. By observing behavior you're aware of the difference between a genuine Christian and a religious hypocrite. If you continue to misidentify all Christians based upon the actions of the hypocrites there is a question to be answered:
Mow that you're aware of the difference, will you continue to misidentify, and if so, why would you do so?