Gingrich does deserve forgiveness for past transgressions that he has confessed and admitted. That is not at issue. What is at issue is whether patterns of indiscretion (e.g. divorcing two wives for sake of personal expediency and marrying a third who was a former mistress) have bearing upon the worthiness of the candidate to hold office and be responsible for ethical and moral questions of far greater consequence. Moreover one cannot help but wonder what exactly motivated the audience to give Gingrich a standing ovation for such retorts. Would Gingrich have received as much sympathetic support if his indiscretions had been a series of homosexual liaisons or some very deviant behaviours? Could it be that Gingrich received such a groundswell of support because many South Carolinians could readily identify with his sin, and they retain some carnal desire to be able to lash out at the accusers of their sin in as powerful and effective way as he did on the big stage? Maybe this points to a worse problem than Gingrich’s character in our own hypocrisy. And maybe it’s really our own character that has been shown hollow this week rather than his.
As a schoolboy growing up in Illinois I recall being taught the principle of honesty through the example of Abraham Lincoln. So honest was Lincoln in his dealings with other people that he once walked a mile to return a penny he was overcharged in a shop. Character was modelled for us in great presidents like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson. It was thus very surprising to see Newt Gingrich receive a standing ovation in South Carolina last week when he railed on John King for such "despicable" behaviour in even raising the character question in light of the recent attention upon his divorces and infidelity. Moreover pundits resoundingly agree that Gingrich’s quick-witted retorts were key to thrusting him into a decisive victory among South Carolina Republican voters. Let us not forget that all of this happened in a state known for conservative “family values” and a substantial Evangelical voting constituency. Let us also not forget that two other candidates (Santorum and Romney) have relatively intact marriages and families depicting far more consistently in their lives what we would regard as strong “family values”, whether Catholic, Protestant or Mormon. But Gingrich proved victorious.
Gingrich does deserve forgiveness for past transgressions that he has confessed and admitted. That is not at issue. What is at issue is whether patterns of indiscretion (e.g. divorcing two wives for sake of personal expediency and marrying a third who was a former mistress) have bearing upon the worthiness of the candidate to hold office and be responsible for ethical and moral questions of far greater consequence. Moreover one cannot help but wonder what exactly motivated the audience to give Gingrich a standing ovation for such retorts. Would Gingrich have received as much sympathetic support if his indiscretions had been a series of homosexual liaisons or some very deviant behaviours? Could it be that Gingrich received such a groundswell of support because many South Carolinians could readily identify with his sin, and they retain some carnal desire to be able to lash out at the accusers of their sin in as powerful and effective way as he did on the big stage? Maybe this points to a worse problem than Gingrich’s character in our own hypocrisy. And maybe it’s really our own character that has been shown hollow this week rather than his. A recent article in the Calgary Herald reports that an editorial from the Canadian Medical Association Journal is calling for doctors performing prenatal ultrasounds to conceal the sex of the baby for the first 30 weeks in order to avoid a trend of “female feticide” especially prevalent among the Asian community. According to the editorial, Canada is “a haven for parents who would terminate female fetuses in favour of having sons.” The editorial notes that female feticide is "the worst form of discrimination against women. . . . They're saying (to women), 'we don't want you,' and that's extreme."
Selective abortion and infanticide based on gender is not a new idea. The ancient Greeks and Romans were known for gender-based infanticide and exposure, and in modern times the Chinese one-baby policy has all but institutionalized gender-based abortion. But now it is suddenly coming much closer to home as earlier sex identification of a fetus affords the same convenient option to all parents, and statistics begin to show similar discrimination patterns in “progressive” nations in the West such as Canada. But the ironies abound. The same feminist movements that have ardently supported a woman’s “right to choose” now find themselves in support of a practice that enables stealth discrimination against women throughout the world. In response they must now insist that to selectively kill female fetuses is an “extreme” and discriminatory practice. The readily apparent duplicity is astonishing. Why should the act of feticide suddenly become wrong when we know the baby’s gender? Female feticide is wrong not because we are saying to women, “we don’t want you,” but because we are saying to the human being, “we don’t want you.” It is hypocrisy of the worst sort to suggest that it is fine to practice feticide as long we don’t know the gender of the fetus, but the moment we do, it suddenly becomes wrong. The intent of this blog is to be a forum for theological and cultural reflection on a wide array of issues that relate to singleness, marriage and the household of faith. In our modern multicultural climate, orthodox Christians who affirm a high value for biblically-based “family values”, such as sexual chastity, heterosexual marriage, life beginning at conception, and the discouragement of divorce, often find allies in those from other faith traditions including Judaism, Islam and Mormonism. But the New Testament’s surprising additional affirmation of singleness as something “good” (1 Cor 7:1), on the other hand, generally breaks with these other traditions and raises the possibility that the distinction itself points to something fundamentally different in Christian theology. What is it that makes Christianity different, and why is it that Christianity positively affirms a positive role and purpose for singles within the community of faith, while these other traditions also rooted in the creation account in Genesis do not? The answer is not a simple one, but intersects how we understand the person and work of Christ, the nature of Christian discipleship and the household of faith. Genesis is the foundational beginning of how we are to understand marriage, singleness and offspring, but it is not the end of the story. As theologically astute Christians we are compelled to follow these themes as they develop through the full canon of the Word of God culminating in the person work of Jesus Christ and the nature of the new community that he inaugurates.
The theological question of singleness is worth exploring not simply because we may find ourselves or someone dear to us in the single state, but because in exploring it we gain greater understanding of the larger macro-theological themes of Scripture. The payoff is not primarily therapeutic, but transformative in what it has to teach us about the nature of God and the grandeur of his plan for humanity. The upshot is that this is a topic worth exploring because the journey has much to teach us beyond the topic itself. For though we begin with a theological question about singleness, we soon find ourselves standing before the grand and comprehensive plan of God purposed in Christ for all creation. From there we return, blessed and enriched in our understanding not only of singleness, but also of marriage, offspring, family and everything else in God’s created order. The topic is also important because it does touch so many of us, either at present, or in the past, or possibly in the future. We all begin our life as single and we all will exit it single. The majority of us find ourselves unmarried as we approach death’s door. Even those in long and very blessed marriages recognize that circumstances can suddenly tear us from our spouses with no advanced warning. So it is perhaps the stark reality of life in this age that compels us to take fresh comfort in this distinctive New Testament teaching. And it is reason enough that we should seek to understand the deeper theological truths to which it points. It is my hope and prayer that my work can be a positive step forward not only in theological exploration of these themes, but also in cultural engagement for the benefit of those both inside and outside the church. It is to that end that I also hope and pray that this blog can be glorifying to God and edifying to his people. Soli Deo Gloria |
A Bit About Barry:Barry is currently serving as the Community Pastor for Single Adult Ministries at Centre Street Church in Calgary, Alberta, having over twenty years of experience in various capacities of single adult ministry. Barry offers both a pastoral perspective as well as academic expertise on the subject having completed his Ph.D. (University of Cambridge) on the topic of Paul's discussion of singleness in 1 Corinthians 7. Barry is author of the book Redeeming Singleness: How the Storyline of Scripture Affirms the single life (Crossway, 2010). Barry is an international speaker and teacher. He is unmarried and currently resides in Calgary, Alberta. Archives
November 2014
Categories
All
|