Today we hear yet another Republican elected official confess to an episode of extramarital sexual activity. Again, he admits to behavior that is out of line with the fundamental values that he has fought for (as well as the minimum standards expected of an elected official in America), but refuses to resign his office. Since Newt Gingrich there have been about two dozen of these among Federal elected officials and it seems the rate of discovery is increasing.
How can the right-wing position maintain any credibility with all of this? Are we to conclude that the people who push for a marriage amendment to the constitution, making even limited abortion a jailing offense, and abstinence-only sex education for teenagers evidently include many who do not really believe in these things? Or, are those who feel these values are more important than helping the poor or reforming health care simply so tempted by extramarital and premarital sex that they are driven by their strong, inner needs. (In other word, if I am terrified that I might violate a certain moral standard, perhaps I would like to see a law passed to reinforce the "guard rail" or "fence" against this temptation.)
Why have none of the religious leaders who have pressed so hard for "traditional family values" come forward to suggest that the Senator and Governor who have most recently confessed to extramarital affairs need to resign from public office? Is the political strength of the Republican Party more important to these religious leaders than traditional family values? Do they really believe in promoting Christian values in public life, or is it simply a ruse to use Christian faith to promote a certain brand of politics?
People of faith in the Republican Party have some very important questions to answer deep in their own hearts. Christ is the onlooking Lord they need to answer to, not political opponents. But, the fundamental sincerity of the conservative political groups that promote "traditional family values" is clearly in question. How many of these groups are simply fronts to manipulate Christians and how many of them are authentic expressions of faith? Stay tuned. Evidence is surfacing.
I am registered independent purposely. My convictions are not tethered to a particular political agenda. Ron Sider got it right when he calls us to practice a whole cloth moral framework that will incorporate the best of both political positions.
I thought we had entered a new post partisan era, and I am thinking that this post may not represent such. Let us remember that sin does not have a party affiliation, and it would have been quite easy to list members of the other party who have practiced similar transgressions.
My mind runs to Paul’s council in Galatians about how we should treat the fallen.
It is my sense that ad hominem techniques to advance our position has a short term emotional satisfaction, but does not have sustaining power.
Posted by: chris | June 24, 2009 at 03:59 PM
My concern may be misplaced, but it seems to me we have a particular problem with a political movement that wants to use the power of the state to regulate other people's behavior sexual behavior while ignoring the way many of their own misbehave. For anyone to get elected on the basis of mobilizing this concern, then misbehave but refuse to resign office seems to me to be completely unethical. In other words, if the issue of sexual behavior had not been politicized by the very politicians who are now transgressing, I would be inclined to see this as a private matter. It is not their sexual misbehavior that is the issue here: It is the attitude that other, weaker people who misbehave should be prosecuted and sent to jail, while their misbehavior should be forgiven and have no public consequences. That is a morally flawed position, it seems to me, that "values voters" should reject if they want to be seen as actually voting on the basis of traditional family values.
If the governor and the senator were members of my congregation, I would assure them of full and free forgiveness and support, but at the same time, I would encourage them to change their behavior. And the first step (or an early step) should be to honor the fact that they ran on a promise to advance traditional family values by resigning.
Posted by: Monte Sahlin | June 30, 2009 at 04:59 AM
Why would I post a sharp response to the original blog post of my most respected Adventist voice and a friend?
Let me explain. After the 2004 elections, the late Tim Russet invited four prominent ministers to his program, Meet the Press to speak to the moral issues of the day. Sharpton, Wallis, Land, and Falwell made up the famous four.
This was such a missed opportunity for mature leadership as the dialog became a food fight.
Instead of shedding light, they generated heat.
Instead of providing salty savor to the political dialog, they provided indigestion with much peppery discussion.
It was a most embarrassing moment for Christendom in my estimation.
Since then, I have reacted strongly to any perceived attack on the person instead of tackling the argument they may represent.
If we are going to breakout of the dismissive stereotype casting of how Christians are viewed, we need to practice an increased discipline in loving our political opposite who is a brother/sister of faith.
I think that would be a compelling posture that will beg for an eager wider hearing. There is such a hunger for the demonstration of amazing grace.
As to the argument that the stance is hypocrital, I have yet to hear any prominent voice that has come to senator & governor’s defense. To the contrary, I have heard calls for their resignation. This has been a big deal as the values that are supported are above the individuals, and they are paying dearly in the court of public opinion. Trust is the esteemed currency of leadership, and their stock value is similar to GM’s.
Just imagine if say Jim Wallis reached out to both these men as you would have practiced in your congregation?
Posted by: chris | June 30, 2009 at 05:47 PM
Apparently the hypocrisy is even greater than it appears:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-sc-governor-spiritual-boot-camp,1,3765523.story
I'm one of those people who is finding this hard to take from the right. It's not that the man had affairs: it's that he's been so hard on others, and so self-righteous.
Posted by: Loren Seibold | July 01, 2009 at 04:57 PM
Blogs are so interactive where we get lots of informative on any topics nice job keep it up !!
Posted by: term papers | July 02, 2009 at 05:22 AM
Chris, to be honest, I may be worse in my heart than what I have written publicly so far. To me there is a theological and moral difference between the nonbeliever who may behave wrongly in such areas as sexuality and the fellow believer who steps up to provide leadership in the name of Christian faith, wants to use the power of the state to punish nonbeliever misbehavior, then is discovered to be misbehaving in similar fashion, and yet does not have the moral acuity to resign. In other words, what are we to do with a man who is a fellow follower of Jesus, who takes a strong public stand that the power of the state should be used to force Christian morality on nonbelievers and then confesses to the same kind of sin? Of course God forgives him and expects us to do the same, but does not God also ask the man to step out of power and enter into a time of healing and growth? Am I just being vindictive or is there moral reason in my instincts? If this were a private person, I would have no problem forgiving and forgetting and moving on. But this is a man who continues to exercise power over other people, continues to want to intervene in their lives for the same sin he has committed. Are his hands clean enough to administer justice? Is it wrong to expect of a believer a higher standard when it comes to hands clean enough to administer the power of the law?
Posted by: Monte Sahlin | July 06, 2009 at 09:36 AM
Monte,
I can certainly understand and appreciate your human reaction to this situation.
I also find myself less generous to those who are not naturally aligned with my political philosophy. I certainly agree with the need for this governor to step aside. The folks in SC seem ready take the needed action to remove him from office should he persist. He is sadly going through an emotional meltdown, and need a firm spiritual advisor to arrest his stumble.
You mentioned that he was promoting a Christian morality on non –believers. I am baffled here. What I see being practiced in the land is a civic morality that is undergirded by a Judeo –Christian morality. There will always be those who want to promote their particular issues; however, we have clearly seen how the public has responded. The peak of the influence of the religious right is in the rearview mirror and a new engagement of the Christian community in the marketplace is on its way that has a more balanced perspective.
I think we are still faced with the challenge of finding common ground as a wider Christian community. I truly believe that the non believer say pox on both their houses be it left or right Christianity if we continue to have food fights like the Tim Russet show tragedy. Our greatest asset is how we dispense this gift of amazing grace. If we start metering it dependent on affiliation, we would have wasted our most precious asset. How can wow folks through our response of graciousness even to our political opposite? How can the Spirit’s trans formative power make us viable salt & light?
Posted by: chris | July 07, 2009 at 02:29 PM