Home / News / BreakPoint: Scandals, Politics and Faith

BreakPoint: Scandals, Politics and Faith


For Christians, selectively holding the domestic and impending leaders to high dignified standards reveals in us an unsettling miss of faith.

The past few months have been dominated by an unconstrained march of revelations about the passionate bungle and predations of absolute men. From Hollywood to New York and from Minnesota to Alabama, and just about everywhere else in between, the inlet to which depressed human inlet can penetrate have been laid bare.

While these revelations are dismaying, they aren’t, or at slightest shouldn’t be, surprising. But what is both dismaying and startling is the eagerness of too many people to deny, excuse, overlook, and even boot indiscretion when it’s committed by someone on “their team.”

Thus, one inaugurated official, whose Christianity is well-attested, told the press that she was “troubled” by the indictment of passionate bungle against her party’s claimant and that she “certainly had no reason to disbelieve” the candidate’s accusers. And nonetheless she announced her goal to opinion for that claimant because, in her words, “the United States Senate needs to have in my opinion, a infancy of Republican votes to lift the day.”

It’s formidable to see what distinguishes this arrange of logic from Gloria Steinem’s barbarous invulnerability of President Clinton two decades ago. Steinem urged feminists to urge Clinton since he was “vital” to “preserving reproductive freedom.”


Steinem resolved by essay “What if President Clinton lied under promise about [his passionate misconduct]?  . . . There seems to be magnetism for gripping private passionate function private.” To do otherwise, Steinem concluded, “will invalidate appetite and talent the country needs.”

Now someone who disagreed with that kind of rationalizing back then and would, I’m confident, remonstrate now, was Chuck Colson.

At the tallness of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandals, he called the magnetism Steinem alluded to “completely wrong-headed.” He went on to contend that “In a democracy, impression and care are inseparable.”

He then told the story of how George Washington defused a intensity mutiny by delinquent Continental Army veterans. Meeting with his officers and propelling them to give Congress some-more time, Washington paused to put on his glasses, and pronounced “Gentlemen, you must atonement me. we have grown gray in your service and now find myself going blind.” The soldiers began to weep. Mutiny was averted.

As Thomas Jefferson after wrote, “the mediation and trait of a singular [man] substantially prevented this Revolution from being closed, as many others have been, by a overthrow of that autocracy it was dictated to establish.”

As Chuck said, “What the Founders accepted is that impression is the first requirement of leadership,” since “a republic whose leaders do not lead by their own instance of trait and impression can't enthuse scapegoat for the common good.”

One of the things we honour many about Chuck is that he did not request these beliefs selectively. Those of us who knew him are wakeful of the pain that he felt when distinguished Christian inaugurated officials, some whom he regarded as sons, succumbed to enticement and saw their dignified failings unprotected in degrading fashion.

Chuck stood by his friends but he never immune their actions. He told them that they indispensable to renounce their bureau and get their lives in order. Character wasn’t a narrow-minded issue for him.

Based on new events, it’s reasonable to consternation if the same thing is loyal of us. Now let me be clear; due routine is due to the accused.  However, too many are justifying the well-documented 180-degree spin Christians have finished on the significance of impression in open bureau by appealing to some overriding, domestic concern.

But if it was wrong 20 years ago, it’s wrong today. And it’s a terrible witness.

In the end, where do we place the trust? We do not have to scapegoat the beliefs or the declare on the tabernacle of domestic expedience—precisely since of the ultimate Truth we trust in and live for: that Christ is risen, that He is Lord. And that He eventually will revive all things. No election can ever change that.



Scandals, Politics and Faith: In Whom Do We Trust?

As John, and Chuck, have reiterated, the impression of the inaugurated officials matters, no matter what their domestic party. When the leaders denote trait and firmness in their personal as good as open lives, they yield an instance for future generations.


auto magazine

Check Also

The American Public May Finally Be Turning on the NRA

Photo Credit: golubovystock / Shutterstock Many people worried that it would be business as common …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>