Warning, warning, warning, the following quote is from a quite liberal commentator. Read it with that understanding.
June 26, 2009 | Whenever the latest Republican politician is caught with his zipper undone, a predictable moment of introspection on the right inevitably ensues. Pundits, bloggers and perplexed citizens ruminate over the lessons they have learned, again and again, about human frailty, false piety and the temptations of flesh and power. They express concern for the damaged family and lament the fall of yet another promising young hypocrite. They resolve to restore the purity of their movement and always remember to remind us that this is all Bill Clinton’s fault. What they never do is face up to an increasingly embarrassing fact about themselves and their leaders.
They’re really just liberals in right-wing drag.
The proof is in the penance, or lack thereof, inflicted on the likes of Mark Sanford, John Ensign and David Vitter, to cite a few names from the top of a long, long list. For ideologues who value biblical morality and believe in the efficacy of punishment, modern conservatives are as tolerant of their famous sinners as the jaded libertines of the left. Even after confessing to the most flagrant and colorful fornication, the worst that a conservative must anticipate is a stern scolding, followed by warm assurances of God’s forgiveness and a swift return to business as usual.
Now, before you get angry and go flying off into the air, please read what follows.
I thought I would do some research to disprove what this blogger said. Unfortunately, I was not able to do so. I was not able to find major figures from the moral majority calling upon the Governor to resign. In fact, frankly, I was not able to find major figures from the moral majority making any comment on the Governor. I was able to find almost every major moral majority figure calling upon President Bill Clinton to resign back when that scandal broke loose. I was able to find quotes from them supporting the Clinton impeachment process. More than that, to my shock, I found quotes from James Dobson in 2006, a week after the Foley (Republican, Florida) scandal broke claiming that the damning emails were simply a prank by congressional pages.
I was actually able to find former President Bill Clinton being cited by a couple of figures from the moral majority as being somehow responsible for the loose morals in which several Republican congressmen have engaged. Frankly I fail to see why he is being cited except as a way to somehow partially excuse the inexcusable. And, if those “moral” Republican congressmen are so easily swayed by a man they tried to impeach, then they were not that moral were they?
In other words, I started out to try to clear very conservative Christians from the charge of hypocrisy that has been labeled against them. But, I was not able to do so. Rather, what I found appears to confirm the charge that very liberal bloggers have made. If it is a Republican, the moral majority will support that Republican and/or will quickly forgive them regardless of the charges. If it is a Democrat then that person must resign for the good of the country. I fail to see how this is different from strict party loyalty by those on the left, for they say exactly the same thing–but in reverse–when one of theirs is caught in a lapse. More than that, I see no “moral” majority there. I simply see a movement that has forgotten why it began and what its goals were.
Ultimately, our Christian witness is not hurt by “gays” or “liberals,” etc. Our Christian witness is hurt when we fail to be faithful to our convictions. It is hurt when we fail to equally call for appropriate and balanced discipline that leads to restoration, regardless of the party of the person who has sinned. It is hurt when sexual sin by one party is cause for widespread condemnation and is cited as proof of our failing moral standards, while sexual sin by the other party is cause for us to be reminded that God forgives and restores the sinner.
Do we wish to be taken seriously as Christians in the political arena–whether Republican or Democrat? Then we have to be consistent. Our actions must match our declared statements and our stated beliefs. This is not to say that we must be perfectly consistent. After all, the whole reason the Orthodox have the mystery of Holy Confession is the recognition that we are sinners in need of forgiveness. But, even when we sin, our confessions and our public statements must be consistent with what we proclaim. Only in that consistency will people come to see us as having the capability of providing good direction for our country.
Here is a HUGE part of the problem:
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/06/voice-of-pre-reagan-gop.html
Wow, what an incredible blog post. I think there may be a post of my own coming in the future from what that insightful writer said.
Here are a couple of follow-up posts from Mr. Shea:
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-it-comes-to-bioethics.html
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/07/hoping-for-worst-ii.html
Father, I wish I were a disciplined enough writer to document all the conversations my wife and I have had on this point. I’m sure our habit is less-than-edifying.
I will only say that the problem is never “them” it is and always will be “us”. “Them” is an illusion and it’s worst by-product is this blindness to ourselves. Christ tried to correct the thinking on this and many a saint has repeated his teaching.
No one is listening. I know why in the generic sense, but I can’t fathom why in the individual sense of those I know personally. A couple of my friends are the most rational of persons, yet they cannot bear to consider their heroes flawed.
See the blog post referenced above by Fr. Greg. It answers some of the reason why no one appears to be listening.
Indeed, Father. AS NPR’s “Wait Wait” pointed out, the Gov went and destroyed the sanctity of his marriage before some Same-Sex couple did it for him. When I hear someone – ANYONE – on the Christian “right” decrying liberal divorce laws, then I’ll believe their “sanctity of marriage” argument.
Until then…
I think “feed the hungry, clothe the naked” and other things for the “least of these” are things all Christians can agree on as Dominical and terribly important. Now would be as good a time as any to feed others – even if we can not feed each other at our divided-Lord’s table.
I added that blog to my RSS reader (an auspicious honor to share the listing along with such luminaries as OrthoCuban).
I’ve read a number of articles on how the conservatives have been sold a bill of goods by the “fusion” crowd. I think early “fusion” folks like Buckley understood the tensions in the coalition and had (because of his own Catholic views) a strong emotional connection to his bedfellows.
But that’s lost on the new breed. Burke could be a Whig, but it was a challenge.
I think this is deeper than the political realities. I think I’ve brought up Elder Cleopa before. A YouTube video of his impressed me early in my interest of Orthodoxy. He scorned himself publicly. It was interesting to see the gushing love of the comments on YouTube and contrast that with his own insistence of sinfulness.
I’ve come to Orthodoxy and embrace the teaching of the Church, but I still believe there is good reason to use the word venerate instead of worship when it comes to the Saints (though I’ve found some texts that are sloppy and use both interchangeably).
Not everything that St John Chrysostom wrote was perfect. Not every decision Reagan made was either. The desire for infallibility is ultimately a desire for self-sufficiency instead leaving sufficiency to Christ.
The same thing happens to some Old Calendarists. They need to put the certainty of the Sabbath above man instead of living with Godly wisdom’s ambiguity to have man over Sabbath.
I hate to make this so broad, but this is all the same Bat-channel.
BTW it’s his (and other saint’s) beratement of themselves that leads me to think that my own self-denials might be good for me despite well-meaning builders of self-esteem.
“BTW it’s his (and other saint’s) beratement of themselves that leads me to think that my own self-denials might be good for me despite well-meaning builders of self-esteem.”
I agree, provided that you are then able to keep on walking, and provided you do not make a “sideshow” of yourself. The Elder Cleopas follows that tradition of the Desert Fathers of trying to prevent his disciples from going beyond the honor that is proper from us to monks, priest, deacons, bishops, our parents, etc.To go from honor to adulation (at least in this world) is not appropriate. Veneration does go to the saints–honor goes to those who are still living and are appropriate of honor–love goes to all.
Because English is limited in the ability to express some things, let me clarify that of course all are to be respected as beings created in the image of God. But, our egalitarianism as Americans often prevents us from properly honoring parents, teachers, elders, monks, etc. [Let alone when we go overboard and cross the line into adulation.]
I think you should stop making so much sense, that way I am not tempted to adulate you. 🙂
There is a good thing, wrapped in a hard to crack outer shell here. Culturally speaking, Orthodoxy has given “appropriate” actions for various expressions of humility and of devotion.
For someone new to this culture, both misunderstands those expressions and misappropriates them in his own use.
I do wish Orthodox were a tiny bit more “this” or “that” because it suits my own particularly uncompelling habits and norms. I just have to accept it. But Orthodoxy in America is a still a fluid and ethnically complicated affair. So maybe my difficulty is not wholly my own responsibility.
It’s this complication that’s led to a difficulty in being open with the expectations concerning those norms. Even with all the common ground Greeks expect different behavior norms than Russians, etc.
I had to pry in secret from a priest about whether or not it was traditional to give a gift to a priest after some special official service (even though the matter didn’t involve him). I understand the wisdom of priests not talking about this, but if you have a parish full of converts and the priest doesn’t educate them they will not behave well with other priests.
In other words, sometimes a priest has to be inappropriately candid about honor due him, because if he doesn’t the parishioner will dishonor other priests. It’s about the priesthood, not about him personally. Trick that though.
In any event how much or little or in what tone I am self-deprecating is in flux and informed by the company I try to keep online and at my parish. So also are my acts of honor.
Side note: I have no particular interest in egalitarianism at least in so far as it’s interests are concerned with the self-sufficiency or the fungibility of persons.
I definitely agree with this post in principal. However, I suggest that the % decrease in the media-covered “Christian Right” (CR) response is proportional to the % demise of the CR in general.
There is no doubt that there has been a significant drop in coverage of the Religious Right. It turns up a lot less in the media than it used to due to its drop in influence. However, I did make sure to go to sites of Liberty University, Trinity Broadcasting Network, Focus on the Family, etc. No mention of the scandal is made, at least as of when I visited there.
I remember seeing this last week, and I know its a bit late for this, but I just wanted to point out one person who is calling for him to resign. Tony Beam is an administrator and professor at North Greenville University in Greenville, SC. He has a fairly well listened to talk show on weekday mornings called “Christian Worldview Today.” While he certainly is not a national voice, he is a well-known voice in Upstate South Carolina–he is in contact with and has some influence with the state and federal congressmen… And he is very much a part of the Religious Right, in fact, from my incomplete knowledge of him, he seems to be more concerned about the culture war than he is about the gospel… like many of the RR. Anyway, the point is, he has publicly called for Sanford’s resignation… the blog post was on July 6, but I imagine he has talked about it on his radio show since it happened…
Its still true, though, that no one nationally has issued any statement concerning Sanford’s resignation… especially considering that he was a 2012 presidential hopeful…
I realized i did not provide a link to the article… after skimming through it, i realize that he is a big soft on him, however…
http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/beam/11605664/
I do not mean to imply that I am saying he must resign or her must not resign. I was pointing out that as Christians we need to have a consistent ethic and a consistent approach, regardless of the political party to which the person belongs. If our approach is like Jesus’ to the adulterous woman, then it needs to be so across party lines. If it like that of Jesus to the Pharisees, then it needs to be so across party lines.