sex scandal, politics, Washington, D.C., God, King David, Rep. Anthony Weiner
Let's just face it, sexual scandal in US politics is more about US politics than sexual scandal. In each event, the “other side” fain disdain for the “God awful, repugnant act.” Of course, when it was their team caught up in the act, they somehow manage to press the mute button on their supposed genuine moral disgust of such behavior.

It's all a game (and that should bother us more than anything). It isn't about morals, it's about politics, and for heavens sake let's start admitting that politics haven't been about morals for a very, very long time – if ever. We are not going to solve any real issues if we allow ourselves to continually get distracted by the sexual side shows . And, yes, I'm saying that sexual hanky-panky is a political side-show. In terms of governmental leadership, it certainly isn't the main event, nor should it be.

We've bought into the idea that sexual promiscuity somehow speaks to an elected official's ability to lead, that it “speaks to their character.” Really?!? They are politicians! Politicians lie; let's stop pretending we are shocked by it. In the current Wiener roast by the press and public, one of the repeated themes of disgruntlement is the fact that he lied to the press about it. Really? A politician lied to the press about something that could effect their ability to continue to lord over we wee minions? 

Heavens to Betsy, say it ain't so! The world has gone mad! Really?

Politicians lie. They have power. Some of them, use the power of their office to have sex. Then they use their power to lie about having sex. We act surprised and disturbed. Yet, it will happen again and, sadly, probably soon. And, somehow, we will be surprised and disturbed, yet again.

On a personal level, I'm not a fan of their actions. So, don't read this as a discourse on broadening the acceptance of this kind of behavior, because it is not. I'm just calling out the press, the opposing political side (depending on the sex scandal) and the Church on their less than honest and less than logical take on the whole thing. Let's admit it is political and get on with real governance.

I am particularly bothered by those of us in the Church that try to play the holier-than-thou card by falsely claiming to be the personal bringers of God's judgment on any given situation. This is especially true in matters of sex and politics. The Church tends to get real judgmental, real fast about politicians caught up in sexual scandal and we love to bring down the judgment of God on offenders.

The only thing is, it is not God's judgment; it is our own personal judgment thinly veiled in religiosity. It seems to me that, biblically, God is fairly ambivalent about the whole thing, at least in terms of how a person's ghastly sexual morals relate to their ability to lead. One name: David.

King David is arguably God's greatest political leader.  He was plagued by a massive sexual scandal that would effect the rest of his life and the life of his children. His scandal even involved death. It was bad. Yet God did not pass a judgment on him that would remove him from office. God used David to lead a nation. So, let's stop playing political games with the name of God. (That actually turns out to be something with which God is very concerned - the whole "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God..." commandment thing).

So, in summary:
1) Politicians lie. Stop pretending like it is surprising.
2) Like too many non-politicians (who don't lose their jobs), some politicians have sex outside of their committed relationship. It happens. It is deplorable. It will continue to happen. Stop pretending like it is surprising.
3) Sexually indiscriminate people can still be good leaders even though they are horrible spouses.
4) God has no problem using those people to lead.
5) So, stop co-opting Christianity in thinly veiled inferences in order to pass your personal or political judgment.
6) Turns out God is a little sensitive about the things we claim in God's name, particularly when all we are really trying to do is hurt someone else or get our own way. 

 


Comments

Joni Donze
06/08/2011 15:24

Well said. Thank you.

Reply
Howard Luttrell
06/08/2011 16:04

A great article Mark. Your congregation HAS to be extremely pleased to have you as their pastor. Keep up "The God Article"--it is a great source for thought and action!

Reply
Mysticsinger
06/08/2011 16:14

And let's also, while we're at it, stop pretending that what the Bible says reflects what God actually thinks and who God actually is outside of our experience and our ideas of God. The Bible is a collection of stories of people who'd had experiences of divine mystery that they struggled to understand and describe. It more reflects humans' mindsets than God's. Yes, history shows that God can use flawed humans, but let's not claim to know what God was thinking or approving of or disapproving of at the time. That's just pure speculation and we need to state that it is.

Reply
PortugeeKath
06/08/2011 17:37

Frankly appalled that a Pastor could write this. I have a big problem with the comparison to King & Phophet David. This quote from the article particular grates: "It seems to me that, biblically, God is fairly ambivalent about the whole thing" ........ If one has read the Bible and take any responsibility for teaching the truth of it, how can you write this?

God sent Nathan to trap David by his own sense of right and wrong and as a result, David was convicted of his sin and sought Grace and changed. God sought David's confession and while David remained King, God killed the son of that union as punishment - that's hardly ambivalent!

I'm uncomfortable also with the members of our Congress being raised to the level of a Prophet of God. This presumes that they are specially anointed by God for their service? If these are the anointed, then clearly God has decided to punish the US.

This article disturbs me as it's all part of the movement to accept and turn a blind eye to wrong doing and to just accept it and to feel good about it. Yes, we sin, that is our nature, but it's also God's nature to get our attention and say "No" and because of Christ's sacrifice we no longer have to pay with our own lives and be stoned to death or as in David's case accept our child's life being taken, but that doesn't give us Carte Blanche either.

When our Congress persons succumb to their vices and hide and lie about it they make themselves and our entire country vulnerable. We want them to make fair decisions, not decisions made because someone has dirt on them. We also need them to sometimes keep governmental secrets for the protection of our troops and national security and again deviant behavior opens the door to compromise this. It may be a reality of today, but I think it is still a responsibility of people of basic morality, regardless of religion, to speak up and say "here's the standard" ..."if you fail, get help and get it under control" ... "after you have, maybe we'll trust you again".

I'm just sadden by this whole article.

Reply
06/08/2011 18:02

Joni and Howard - thanks.

Mysticsinger - for me the Bible is a good place to start trying to understand what God think. As you note, there are lot's of human filters to work through, but it is the place I start.

PortugeeKath - You left off part of the actual quote that "grates" for you and the part you left off changes the whole meaning: "at least in terms of how a person's ghastly sexual morals relate to their ability to lead." Additionally you read the rest of the article as if I was commenting on David when I was commenting on God. No worries though. Thanks for giving it a read and for commenting.

Reply
06/09/2011 08:14

AMEN MY FRIEND TO ALL YOU'VE SAID WELL PUT.

Reply
rjw918
06/09/2011 11:45

>>So, in summary:
>>1) Politicians lie. Stop pretending like it is surprising.

That proposition is nothing but a destructive right wing position and amounts to little more than anarchism.

Many right wingers want commerce and corporations to reign supreme without any checks and balances, and thus they denigrate government.

Hamilton warned us: "An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized."

With all due respect, that attitude about politics is the epitome of the very "holier than thou" attitude which the blog eviscerates.

Physician, heal thyself... Or perhaps consider spending more time ruminating on the plank in thy own eye....

Reply
06/09/2011 12:04

rjw918, Seems to me the position is just reality. Politicians do lie, it's a job skill. It's it good? No. I actually never said it was. I do think we are fooling ourselves every time we are surprised with it. We should stop it.

Truly it is judging them for doing it that is the holier than thou attitude...and a bit dishonest.

While I appreciate you reading the blog and commenting, I can't say that your response is particularly helpful in progressing the question of governance. Getting sucked up in the side show of sexual morality is part of the game used to distract. With all due respect, our counter-point is all counter and no point. Ultimately, you prove part of my argument.

We do, however, agree that the right would like to have "commerce and corporations reign supreme without any checks and balances." A more than nasty bit of nefarious heinousness that has become their theme song.

Finally your ad hominem conclusion really has no place in civil debate. But thank you any way.

Reply
06/21/2011 08:43

Really enjoyed this article. I may add a little tidbit. Women politicians tend NOT to get caught in sexual scandals, at least it is much less common among female elected officials. A recent NYT article mentions that fact following the last story of a male politician caught with his pants down. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/weekinreview/12women.html?_r=1

I think the reason stuff like the latest so called scandal is that people just can't help but love good gossip. The juicier the better. They delight in witnessing the fall from grace of people they deem better then us, then have a good old time beating them up before turning to await the next "victim".

What I find sad is the number of Christians who partake in that activity. Why should we delight in the mistakes and consequences of others, and of people we don't even know? Maybe I'm just odd, but that bothers me.

Reply
08/04/2011 01:55

Finally your ad hominem conclusion really has no place in civil debate. But thank you any way.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply