Edwards: 'I Sin Every Day' (by Jim Wallis)
In the Sojourners/CNN candidate forum in June of 2007, John Edwards said, "I sin every day," in response to a question on sin and forgiveness. Some journalists thought that was a throwaway line from a politician. But as the nation shockingly heard one week ago, Edwards was speaking honestly and even confessionally. Here was a man in a good and strong marriage, known to be a wonderful father, and yet last Friday he painfully and publicly confessed to the terrible mistake of an affair with another woman, which caused great hurt to his wife and the family he loves so much.
Having confessed the sin to his family, dealt with the hurt, anger, and even "furious" response to such a severe breach of his closest relationships, the Edwards were hoping to keep the transgression and process of family healing private. But as the story was beginning to leak into the public square, John Edwards made a dramatic confession on ABC News and unleashed a torrent of reaction over the last week.
When these sad, tragic, and heartbreaking revelations occur, it always reminds me of the text from Romans: "There is none righteous, no not one." Yes, Edward's observation during the Sojourners/CNN forum was correct, and he is not the only one. Paul reminds us, "We all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
I have respected John Edwards' championing of the moral issue of poverty, and that's why he appears on the cover of the latest issue of Sojourners, along with former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. I interviewed them both several weeks ago about how we could truly put poverty on the agenda in America. On last month's cover, we featured Elizabeth Edwards, who wrote eloquently about the need for everyone in America to have the kind of health care she has in her courageous fight against cancer.
I know both John and Elizabeth Edwards, and I am blessed to call them friends. John Edwards knows the pain he has caused, which has been rubbed raw again during these excruciating days of sensational media coverage of the most personal of failings. I admire the way they have faced this most tragic situation together. For our part, let's now offer them our heartfelt prayers for the continued healing of their marriage and family life. I pray that they will now be left alone so they may have a time for healing.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Yet another lame article by Wallis. Seriously, this is so disappointing.
Sojo should be ashamed of themselves. How can you take yourselves seriously?
In between giving 100k lectures on poverty, Wallis' friend John Edwards has an affair. In the subsequent months Edwards' mistress is paid considerably more than market rate for her production work (esp since she had never done that type of work previously). She's then supported by various friends/partners of Edwards', living in multimillion dollar residences in CA, hiding from the story.
Is it not fair to ask that the man profiting from his poverty platform be held accountable with regards to his financial/personal integrity?
Edwards' martial failings are indeed a personal/family issue. However, is it not fair to expect more from a candidate? If a man lies to his wife, will he not lie to his constituants? Additionally, isn't it fair to ask questions about his financial integrity, especially becuase of his making hay of the "two Americas" position?
So Wallis will make excuses for his friends, regardless of circumstances. Excuses shouldn't be made for this type of behavior from either side of the aisle.
Posted by: Blake | August 14, 2008 2:26 PM
Moderatelad/Big Guy (I assume =)),
"Yes - there is forgiveness, but I have not heard him ask."
He has asked. He has specifically asked the people who he sinned against, his wife and family. He doesn't have to ask you, since he didn't cheat on you.
In one of my former churches, it came out that the worship leader had an affair. There are some in the church who refuse to forgive him, even though his wife and family have.
I forgive my former worship leader, but the thing is, I have nothing to forgive. The offense wasn't done to me. We want to be very careful that we don't carry the offenses of others as if they are ours lest we harbor bitterness towards that person. Then we become that person's judge, and no one has that right but God. We are to always reflect the love and grace of Christ towards others.
As for what happens within the Edwards family, it is not our business. Period. The only reason he should have come out about it earlier is that the press is relentless in pursuing such stories, and it would have been easier on his family had he done so. But he had no responsibility towards anyone else other than his family and those who are actually affected by his actions.
By the way--The money supplied was from a person who was a mutual friend of the two, and he supplied the money without the knowledge of Edwards. This was revealed in a direct quote by the person who supplied the money, during the Nightline interview itself.
Posted by: squeaky | August 14, 2008 2:40 PM
This is a personal tragedy for the Edwards family, and my prayers are with them both. But beyond the personal tragedy, the timing of this story becoming public provides a huge distraction from the election coverage and the important issues under consideration.
The fact is that politicians from both parties are unfaithful to their spouses. Sometimes, they are able to obtain forgiveness and move on and preserve their marriage - sometimes, not. But the pundits and talk-show hosts will pile on and use the instance to prove that one party is more immoral or hypocritical than the other. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Posted by: Sister Marie | August 14, 2008 3:20 PM
Thank you for a good article Jim. I must say that I do not feel sinned against by by Sen. Edwards I, of course, feel sad for him and his wife, that they must deal with their hurt in this limelight. There are much bigger sins than sexual ones. And the poverty in this country is a prime example. The lack of health care is another. Perhaps the good they did does not wipe out the bad. But I am not eligible to throw stones....are you?
Posted by: Beevo | August 14, 2008 3:25 PM
Squeaky, not ModLad here, just to clarify.
With regards to the forgiveness issue, I believe Edwards should apologize to his family (which he has) and those that contributed to and supported his candidacy. From the looks of things, campaign money was paid (overpaid) to his mistress to produce campaign videos. When folks from the other America (the poor one) gave money to his campaign, did they know it was going to his mistress?
The larger issue is integrity. If Edwards would have lied about a business deal, it would matter. Instead, he lied about his martital faithfulness, to his wife nonetheless. Again, if he's unfaithful to his wife, wouldn't it be fair to ask whether he's being unfaithful to his supporters, platform, causes, etc?
Squeaky, you mention the money being paid by a mutual friend of Edwards' and Hunter's. Do you believe this? On what grounds?
I don't Wallis should break a "friendship" over this. Indeed, I think he should draw near to Edwards during this time. But I would hope a true friend would call another friend to account instead of providing excuses for lack of public integrity. This is what's so disappointing about Wallis.
Posted by: Blake | August 14, 2008 3:27 PM
The tone of Wallis' post substantially differs from the acrimony heaped upon Republicans in a similar position. He has accused the Dobson crowd of applying different standards to the piccadilloes of members of different parties, so what is his excuse here?
Posted by: kevin s. | August 14, 2008 3:39 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anybody here is wanting to "throw stones." Nobody here is suggesting we kill or harm Edwards.
To the contrary, I hope he and his family can begin healing. And as any 12-stepper will tell you, the beginning of the healing process is admitting that you've made a mistake.
What makes this issue difficult is that we can't trust his word anymore. He says he knows nothing about any payments or monetary compensation Rielle Hunter has been receiving. He says her child is not his. He says he's not broken any election laws. Are we to simply believe him?
If Wallis wants to blindly believe and follow Edwards, it's definitely his prerogative. But it does call into question Wallis' credibility.
Posted by: Blake | August 14, 2008 3:56 PM
"If Edwards would have lied about a business deal, it would matter. Instead, he lied about his martital faithfulness, to his wife nonetheless. Again, if he's unfaithful to his wife, wouldn't it be fair to ask whether he's being unfaithful to his supporters, platform, causes, etc?"
If Edwards lied about a business deal, that is an issue that is fair game in the public square as it is a sin against the public. This would be true of any of us. However, he lied about a personal issue, and regardless of how publicly a person lives their lives, it does not mean they are not allowed to have a personal life.
If any of our personal lives were scrutinized to the extent we scrutinize our public officials, I suspect we would all draw the conclusion that we are all hypocrites in one way or another, and therefore none of us deserve anyone else's support for anything.
"Squeaky, you mention the money being paid by a mutual friend of Edwards' and Hunter's. Do you believe this? On what grounds?"
At this point, I believe it because I have not seen evidence to the contrary. Do you disbelieve it? On what grounds?
bigguy--Clinton is a D, too, and he didn't get the pass you seem to imply Democrats get.
As for McCain--in the issue of balance lest you think I am only defending Edwards, McCain's divorce and his record of faithfulness to his wives is none of our business. That is between him and his family. He deserves a personal life just like any one of us would insist on.
Posted by: squeaky | August 14, 2008 3:59 PM
Jim's critique against Dobson and the rest focused in their attitudes and moral sacrifices in political arenas -- their dishonesty re: their agendas; their tendency to fit Jesus into a box of their own design.
So far as I can see, the reaction to Edwards' confession fits the patterns of affirmation and condemnation in other events of the election. If one didn't like/vote for/care about John Edwards to start with, this becomes a wonderful vehicle for condemnation. Those who found value in his message are more likely to understand that a sin in one area of one's life doesn't generalize to every characteristic, emotion, thought, and commitment that person has.
Then, too, is the issue of confession of God and acceptance of forgiveness and redemption from Him.
People tend to enjoy drawing blood and straining at gnats. To confess to a priest, a pastor, a trusted friend is one thing -- to confess to millions of people who are dancing over his fall is, one one hand, courageous, and on the other hand, foolish. If anything can interfere with healing and redemption, that would be it.
Do we even recognize our own sin in the judgment we pass?
Posted by: openeyes | August 14, 2008 4:00 PM
well said, openeyes.
Posted by: squeaky | August 14, 2008 4:03 PM
I hope he does the honorable thing and leaves the public life and works on his family.
Posted by: mk | August 14, 2008 4:04 PM
openeyes, thanks for the thoughtful comment.
Posted by: carl copas | August 14, 2008 4:15 PM
Posted by: squeaky | August 14, 2008 3:59 PM
I was dealing with the canidate level and senators. Clinton - who cares anymore. I don't even he can remember all the women that he was done 'whatever' with. For the most part - he got a 'bye'. We can do a power poing with Pres Clinton to the song 'For All the Girls We Loved Before' and one for Sen Clinton with Tammy singing 'Stand By Your Man'. (LOL)
Posted by: Big Guy | August 14, 2008 4:28 PM
Squeaky--"If Edwards lied about a business deal, that is an issue that is fair game in the public square as it is a sin against the public. This would be true of any of us. However, he lied about a personal issue, and regardless of how publicly a person lives their lives, it does not mean they are not allowed to have a personal life."
Two points here...
First, lying about a business deal wouldn't be a sin against the public, it would be a sin against the business, their shareholders, etc. The reason the public would care is not because they were sinned against, as the majority of the public would not have been. The public would care because it reflects a lack of integrity and character. For this same reason, marital fidelity is important. Not because we're all planning on marrying John Edwards, but because his integrity and honesty (or lack thereof), both of which are important in public leadership.
Second, I haven't heard anybody suggest Edwards eliminate his "personal life," unless by "personal life" you mean marital infidelity. It's my experience that one can have a "personal life" and remain faithful.
Squeaky--"At this point, I believe it because I have not seen evidence to the contrary. Do you disbelieve it? On what grounds?"
I don't know whether to believe him or not with regards to whether he knew Hunter was receiving payment. That's probably something that should be accounted for. At this point, Edwards probably doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Seems reasonable to me.
openeyes, has judgement been passed on this board? Be careful how you use that word.
Posted by: Blake | August 14, 2008 4:33 PM
Thank you "open eyes".
Posted by: SFM | August 14, 2008 4:37 PM
Thank you "open eyes".
Posted by: SFM | August 14, 2008 4:37 PM
Thank you "open eyes".
Posted by: SFM | August 14, 2008 4:37 PM
Thank you "open eyes".
Posted by: SFM | August 14, 2008 4:37 PM
Thank you "open eyes".
Posted by: SFM | August 14, 2008 4:37 PM
Thank you "open eyes".
Posted by: SFM | August 14, 2008 4:37 PM
Thank you "open eyes".
Posted by: SFM | August 14, 2008 4:37 PM
Thank you "open eyes".
Posted by: SFM | August 14, 2008 4:37 PM
openeyes is right.
Posted by: smf | August 14, 2008 4:40 PM
openeyes is right.
Posted by: smf | August 14, 2008 4:41 PM
I don't think that it matters to which party you belong--All have sinned and fallen short. Many have sinned by lying about sexual matters and by being less than faithful in sexual matters. From Abraham to David to Jacob and Sarah and Rebecca and Rahab--and you get the picture, I'm sure. What is needed in all of these cases is not our judgement. God is the judge. Fortunately for all of us, God gives us grace. Whether it is Clinton or Edwards or Craig or McCain or Newt Gingrich, God's grace is enough for them, if they appropriate it. It had better be enough for us too, or we face what we think they will face at the time we come before God for an accouting. We are not to be like the Pharisee, remember?
Posted by: Diane | August 14, 2008 4:49 PM
I do pray for John Edwards and his family. But, by no means, does that mean he is above criticism. The timing of his public confession (on a friday...of the Olympic opening ceremonies) showed the complete cowardice of this man. If he wanted privacy with this matter, he shouldn't have run for president. He should have spent that time reconciling with his wife.
It's men like John Edwards that make me realize how powerful God's grace truly is.
Posted by: DITE | August 14, 2008 4:55 PM
I think the point is that this is a tragic mess. I always get a little angry when I hear that spouses cheat. Just like I do when I hear someone beat his kid to death. That doesn't make me judgmental. It's not the way it's supposed to be. It's not ok or to be expected. Self-control could have prevented all of it.
I think it's good for us to imagine all the damage he has done. We have to determine for ourselves once again, not to treat the people we care about in a similar manner.
I don't need or want an apology from him. I do think it's fair to ask a public figure, 'Did you really think this wouldn't come out?' I mean why does anyone think they can cheat on their spouse and it not end tragically? But anyone in office is being watched (if not set up)for this very thing.
Affairs happen, and I get that. But if we don't learn from others' mistakes, we're more likely to make the same ones.
Posted by: frankie | August 14, 2008 5:05 PM
"First, lying about a business deal wouldn't be a sin against the public, it would be a sin against the business"
It could be a sin against the public if it affects the public in an economic or an environmental way.
"Second, I haven't heard anybody suggest Edwards eliminate his "personal life," unless by "personal life" you mean marital infidelity. It's my experience that one can have a "personal life" and remain faithful."
True--but he dealt with the issue privately with his family. Insisting that the issue be made public, as the media has done, when it is an intensely private matter and one that has been dealt with already in his private life, denies him the right to have his family issues remain private.
I wonder who among us would want our private family secrets to be made public? How would any of us would like it if we were hounded by the press over a difficult and painful family issue? Would we think it fair? What if we had already dealt with that painful issue in the privacy of our family, and what if we were struggling and working together as a family to slowly forgive each other and move past that issue? Would we not consider it an incredibly horrible intrusion on our personal lives if the press hounded us at every turn to own up to this very private issue in a very public way? Could it not be argued that we are protecting our family if we refuse to admit this private failing in public? Specifically, hasn't Elizabeth Edwards been through enough already that she has to relive this again for the entire world to see?
"I don't know whether to believe him or not with regards to whether he knew Hunter was receiving payment. That's probably something that should be accounted for. At this point, Edwards probably doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Seems reasonable to me."
Agreed on Edwards, but it was the person providing that payment who said he did it without Edwards' knowledge. He was quoted directly by Nightline.
Posted by: squeaky | August 14, 2008 5:11 PM
Thank you for your comments Diane and openeyes. I think we are a very judgemental nation. I am ashamed sometimes at the tabloid side issues we obsess on and how the pols and media manipulate us. We are so easily distracted away from real global and domestic issues for which we should hold our pols accountable. I see so much hatred/divisiveness - and from people who proclaim to follow the Lord. Such hypocrisy.
Posted by: Irene | August 14, 2008 5:14 PM
DITE
"It's men like John Edwards that make me realize how powerful God's grace truly is."
Not that I disagree with you because I do in principle. God's grace is truly powerful towards people who screw up, even in the most heinous fashion as Edwards did. And that should make us all be in awe of God's grace.
However, although I don't think you intended this, there is a lot of judgement in the statement itself. It implies you are a better person than John Edwards. And maybe you are, maybe you aren't. I don't know. But the true response that any one of us should have is to recognize that God's grace isn't powerful because He can forgive John Edwards. God's grace is powerful because He can forgive ME. If that statement doesn't strike in me awe of God's grace, then what it means is I don't fully understand the measure of my own sin.
frankie--"I mean why does anyone think they can cheat on their spouse and it not end tragically? But anyone in office is being watched (if not set up)for this very thing."
It does seem like a no-brainer, doesn't it? He explained it in the interview--felt he was above it all. And though many would dismiss the statement because it came from him, the truth is, people in positions of power do have far more temptation to deal with than the average Joe. A former pastor of mine emphasized how important it was to pray for our leaders because they are under far more pressure than most of us can imagine, and the temptations are even greater because of their position of power.
We've seen the same in our church leadership, as well. Yes, we hold them to extremely high standards, but along with doing that comes our responsibility to hold them up in prayer because they take the brunt of spiritual attack because they are in the most visible position.
Posted by: squeaky | August 14, 2008 5:26 PM
As a (former) John Edwards supporter, I believe he owes me electability. I believe he owes me the decency to walk his talk. I know we all sin but it seems to me that if you hew to a certain code of conduct as a public figure, that you had better measure each action you undertake to that code before you take the action.
Posted by: mel | August 14, 2008 5:32 PM
Diane, nobody's saying that God's grace doesn't extend to John Edwards. Not one person has commented on Edwards' salvation.
I'm assuming you buy cars from shady car dealers, fearing that not doing so would be judgemental?
Irene, if using one's mental capacity to decipher the integrity of a public official is considered hypocrisy, sobeit. And for what it's worth, I don't hate you or John Edwards.
Posted by: Blake | August 14, 2008 5:32 PM
Whoops--mis-spoke. The following sentence:
"Not that I disagree with you because I do in principle."
should read
"Not that I disagree with you because I AGREE with you in principle."
Posted by: squeaky | August 14, 2008 5:33 PM
Squeaky, When our leaders, or would-be leaders, falsely represent themselves to us to gain our trust and backing, I feel they do owe the general public an "I'm sorry, please forgive me" when they are discovered to be less than they had presented themselves to be. Our nation, and of special concern to me, our children and young adults are deeply affected by the revelation of untrustworthy behavior, deceit, and lack of integrity by those who tell us they can be trusted and point to being Christian and loving parents and spouses as some of the reasons why we can believe them.
Jim, the tone of your article seems to want to persuade me to pity John Edwards:"painfully, rubbed raw, excruciating, sad, tragic, heartbreaking" and seeks to protect him: "blessed to call them friends, I've respected, I admire, he is not the only one, I pray they will be left alone." To me those don't seem the healthiest course to take.
Aren't you outraged that our Enemy has again lured another fellow Christian into his trap and that our brother did not successfully resist that temptation? If so, won't you call on every leader and every one of us to do battle and call with all our might to God for help when we are tempted? I personally felt the shock you mentioned and also stunned, crushed, disheartened,and angry. I don't ever want to cynically respond with "oh, well, what can you expect from a politician?"(or preacher, or anyone in a place of power) or “I like him so I’m just going to have to overlook this. It’s his personal business.” I want to expect my leaders and myself to aim at the highest, purest, finest behavior. We're all sinners. I won't always have my expectations met, but then I expect myself, and others who say they follow Jesus, to face sin boldly and honestly and ask forgiveness from God, from those most personally hurt, and also from brothers and sisters--those who share in faith and spiritual battle and also those in the wider human family.
Holding these expectations for ourselves and each other can be done with deep love and forgiveness. For a person in your position of influence, saying privately and publicly to John Edwards, “Thank you for your confession. I am appalled and grieved that you have set aside God’s way for us to live and acted with such a lack of love for your wife and children. I am shocked at your betrayal of my trust and embarrassed that at this time you are on the cover of our magazine. Your treachery may negatively impact our work of advocating for the poor. I want to love and forgive you and see you restored. It will mean some work on your part...” would be offering love and care to him and also to those of us who were hurt to hear of his confession. Our children, our nation, our world need to hear nothing less than complete truth spoken with love. We need to hear and see righteousness, justice and grace held high and followed by those who carry Christ’s name.
Posted by: human111 | August 14, 2008 5:38 PM
I imagine that if the Edwardses were my friends, I would stand up for them like this, too. Still, this seems to be more of an explanation as to why Edwards is on the cover of Sojo. As much as I initially wanted to believe that he was coming completely clean with his family and with us, I don't think that's the case any more. He chose the time to do it--when he thought most people would be watching the Olympics--and then was "furious" when ABC ran the segment earlier than he requested. The fact is that this is not *just* a case of marital infidelity. This is someone who played every single person who supported his campaign. I know it's already been said, but it's clear that his judgement and integrity are hugely lacking by the fact that had he gone on to win the nomination, he could have entirely destroyed the party's chance of winning and massively destroyed any credibility even past the election. That is more than just a lapse of judgement.
I have greatly admired Elizabeth, but I also feel played by her. If what they are claiming is true--that she knew about this before his run--then she was enabling him to allow him to run in spite of knowing this could hurt SO many people. That is beyond troubling. And while I choose to believe Edwards that the affair was over when he said it was, it a bit difficult to swallow nevertheless. Yes, the Enquirer has that "hold your nose factor" as MSM pundits have said, but the incident in the hotel did actually happen, as tasteless as it was. The fact is that he went to the hotel to see her and the child. Given the dates that are now coming out from various journalists (such as Newsweek's Jonathan Darman) and friends who were in touch with Rielle Hunter past this date, it sounds as if there is a lot more to this story than Edwards has admitted to. We already know that he did lie about a few things even in the Dateline interview. He said that the Enquirer's allegations were 99% not true when it's come out that they were more true than not. Family and friends of Hunter who don't approve of what she did still hold that the baby is Edwards, which brings up new questions of deceit. And what about the money? Right now, the timeline of accounts is beginning to look like the affair began before giving her the job, even--which is a whole other story if that's true.
All this to say, I think that while we should be quick to forgive, we should be quick to hold a candidate accountable. These many incidents beg a second look at everything that Edwards has said, no matter how much we want to believe in his total honesty. Someone who lies in one area rarely is 100% honest in other areas. Of course, to be fair, the media should care a bit more about the fact that the Republican candidate went a step further--not only did he cheat on his wife of many years who had health problems (and had been disfigured in a terrible accident)--he left her and married the "other woman"--jumping to it even before divorce papers were completely processed. That man is John McCain.
Posted by: LWA | August 14, 2008 5:51 PM
Just to clarify--I think that calling Jim Wallis's personal integrity and credibility into question because John Edwards had an affair and Wallis didn't become his judge and jury, is wrong. Sometimes we Christians are too quick to think that the "Aha" factor proves that we were right all along--that person with whom we disagree is a bad person because they did this or that. "Let him who standeth take heed lest he fall." You are qualified to pass judgement on Jim Wallis or John Edwards when you are without sin yourself.
Buying a car is a different matter. Grace does not apply unless the shady dealer asks foregiveness for selling me a known lemon. When a person who has sinned asks for forgiveness from God and his family, that is pertinent. If a used car dealer asked my forgiveness for selling me a lemon--that's pertinent too.
Posted by: Diane | August 14, 2008 5:54 PM
Diane--"You are qualified to pass judgement on Jim Wallis or John Edwards when you are without sin yourself."
What's your definition of "judgement"? My understanding is that biblical judgement has to do with salvation. Nobody is questioning that here.
After the dealer admits to selling you the lemon, do you buy the next car from him? If not, are you "judging" him?
Posted by: Blake | August 14, 2008 6:01 PM
It appears that many on this blog skipped the reminder in Romans which says "There is none righteous, no not one." Why are so many individuals so concerned about what another does wrong, especially since every individual at some point does wrong? Edwards certainly messed up and there is nothing you or I can do about it. If that's the case, let's build him, his family, and this country up by offering prayers as Wallis suggests. Does the saying "hate the sin, love the sinner" ring a bell. What better way can we show love than to offer our prayers instead of just oozing with hatred. Let it go! That's what Christ did for you!
Posted by: Darin | August 14, 2008 6:05 PM
You know, has anyone ever considered the opposite of this situation?
Suppose we had a man who was publicly and openly a vile, reprehensible monster. Perhaps a pornographer of the worst sort, creating films that degrade and debase even by the standards of the adult film industry. On a personal level, he's known as an egotistical, selfish jerk who uses and abuses everyone around him.
But, it turns out, he loves his wife dearly, and is completely devoted to her in every way. Regardless of all his terrible behavior, to her he is a saint.
Do we now give this guy a pass? Do we say "Well, sure, he's a monster everywhere else, but he's great to his wife, so I feel he can be trusted."
Obviously not. We feel that his overall monstrous behavior outweighs his "aberrant" good behavior towards his wife, in much the same way we discount Hitler's love of dogs and children.
Hence, doesn't it logically follow that since Edwards has done enormous work for the poor, and displayed many other fine qualities, that this one failing should not be enough to weigh against him so heavily?
Truthfully, if one's many sins can be used to disregard one's few virtues, should the opposite be true?
And if it's not, what good man or women wouldn't be found wanting, if we look closely enough?
Posted by: JPL | August 14, 2008 6:05 PM
Blake,
You are comparing two different things. You have the right to vote or not vote for anyone you choose. I just don't think you have the right to call Jim Wallis's integrity into question because he didn't do what you thought he should. For what it's worth, I don't know Jim Wallis or his family or anyone connected with him.
Posted by: Diane | August 14, 2008 6:08 PM
God forgive and bless us all; miserable sinners that we are. But, I especially thank God this evening for squeaky and openeyes, who, in the above discussion, have displayed the love, forgiveness and grace that God desires of all his children.
Posted by: sam | August 14, 2008 6:23 PM
Squeaky --
Thinking he was above being caught doesn't give me any sympathy for the man. I'm not saying I don't understand it, because I was a teenager -- and I think you sort of thrive on the control of getting away with stuff. They had pictures of his secret meeting with Obama for heaven's sake. It is arrogant and ignorant to believe sin will not destroy you.
But it's also hypocritical to jump on the press for disclosing this story. Edwards liked the press when he needed them -- he wanted coverage. He wanted them to tell the world what a great family man he was. Now they're just doing what he asked them to do.
Posted by: frankie | August 14, 2008 6:28 PM
Silly me, I thought fidelity and faithfulness in our marriage relationships were also family values. What was Jesus' biggest problem with religious leaders—hypocrisy was it? I guess he just didn’t understand the necessities of pro-family politics.
Posted by: kevin s. | August 14, 2008 6:33 PM
I agree with Jim that the Edwardes need to heal in private. Their marriage is really their business.
But I also think Edwards should publicly apologize to all who worked on and contributed to his campaign. These people supported a doomed campaign. If he had won the nomination, it would have been a disaster.
I think it is disgusting how the wing-nuts at Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are using this to attack Edwards and the Democrats. The truth is there are men in both major political parties who have found themselves in sex scandals. One side is not morally superior to the other.
I just hope all the money going from Fred Barnes to Andrew Young and Rielle Hunter is not illegal. (And just what did Edwards see in Hunter, anyway? Ick!)
Posted by: Allison | August 14, 2008 8:44 PM
I am a bit taken aback from the comments here. Does not anyone remember that it was Edwards that brought ending Poverty to the forefront? Was it not Edwards that took time out from campaigning and took a Poverty Walk? Edwards was the first to call for Universal Healthcare, better jobs by strenghtening Unions, formulated a Green Energy Plan with Green Jobs and Clinton and Obama had to rush to keep up. Edwards also called for an Open, fair and unbaised media and called for the end of Corporations controlling Washington. I am still a supporter of Edwards, while the messanger may have clay feet, the message was the right one. If we are going to judge Edwards, then McCain needs to drop out now for he is guilty of the same offense. John Edwards spoke for me during the Primary, and since I am not his judge, I can only hope that he may move past this and continue to work for the causes that mean so much to him.
Posted by: Liz | August 14, 2008 8:47 PM
Was/is John Edwards' heart really in the fight against poverty?
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/08/hbc-90003382
Posted by: Rog | August 14, 2008 10:02 PM
"What's your definition of "judgement"? My understanding is that biblical judgement has to do with salvation. Nobody is questioning that here."-
Blake
Blake: Biblical judgment has more to do with reconciliation than salvation. The Bible says "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." and again "so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow." I encourage you and others here to measure yourself and Rev. Wallis' "judgment" in this matter.
Thanks, Squeaky, for your responses on this thread.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 14, 2008 10:23 PM
"God's grace is truly powerful towards people who screw up, even in the most heinous fashion as Edwards did. And that should make us all be in awe of God's grace.
However, although I don't think you intended this, there is a lot of judgement in the statement itself. It implies you are a better person than John Edwards."
This is kind of my point. I'm amazed at God's grace because feel no forgiveness for Edwards right now, only contempt. I want to call him a pathetic reptilian slime-ball, yet God still loves him the same as he always has.
Posted by: DITE | August 14, 2008 11:09 PM
DITE: Forgiveness is not a feeling.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 14, 2008 11:18 PM
"DITE: Forgiveness is not a feeling."
I never said it was.
Posted by: DITE | August 15, 2008 12:54 AM
"I'm amazed at God's grace because feel no forgiveness for Edwards right now, only contempt."
DITE: ?
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 15, 2008 8:23 AM
My comment isn't specifically about the John Edwards incident (though he's a wonderful example of what follows), but a response to the two Biblical lines Jim Walls quoted: "There is none righteous, no not one" and "We all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
I wanted to give a non-Christian's persective on this. First, I don't believe God is some huge presence outside myself who alternately offers eternal bliss and eternal torment. I believe God resides inside myself and constantly offers guidance on how to fulfill my life (the life God created me to fulfill) and experience joy.
I'm told by this guidance that I'm not a "sinner," but simply a work-in-progress. I'm here to learn from my mistakes. God feels as little wrath toward me when I make mistakes as any healthy parent would feel toward their child in that situation. God hopes I learn from my mistakes, but the choice is mine. If I choose not to learn, I wind up in hell--a hell of my own making, which I can leave at any time I choose to. God always tells me how.
Granted, some mistakes are much bigger than others. Some of us works-in-progress have a lot more progress to make than others. But I believe we all have this guidance inside us, and can choose to accept it and have a beautiful life, or reject it, and continue wallowing in misery.
For me, this is a much better way to stop "sinning" than to cringe before a potentate figure. With the latter, I might be terrified into "changing my ways," but would I really be changing in my spirit? Or would I just be trying to escape a horrible punishment?
With the work-in-progress perspective, I choose to make the changes myself, thus reinforcing them within myself ("owning" them) in a way no outside commands could match. And isn't this what every healthy loving parent wants for their child?
Posted by: Art | August 15, 2008 8:26 AM
You say that John Edwards "confessed to the terrible mistake of an affair." There is a significant theological difference between a "mistake" and a "sin."
Mistakes are when people do something which they thought was acceptable or proper and the outcome is bad. I make a mistake when I buy the wrong product at the supermarket because I failed to read the label. Proper intention followed by either improper process or lack of information resulting in a negative outcome.
To characterize having an extramarital affair as a "mistake" implies that John Edwards thought it was acceptable to become involved with a woman who was not his wife. Is that how we should characterize his behavior?
One of the problems with our ordained Church leadership (regardless of denomination) is a lack of will to name sin as sin. Instead we minimize it by calling it a "mistake." We must learn to use the language of sin, repentance, and forgiveness properly in order to preach redemption that really means something.
Posted by: Rev. Anjel | August 15, 2008 8:53 AM
There is a deeper level of analysis required here. Yes, there is a need for grace and acknowledgment that we all sin and loving friendship carries us through even the worst faults. But leaders, particularly leaders speaking to the ethical standards of society (especially church leaders)are held to a standard of integrity and consistency, that if broken, jeopardizes the rest of their message. Edwards' unique ability to speak for the poor and inspire people was jeopardized by his personal choices--yes, by the affair and his abuse of his power, but also by his personal use of his wealth (haircuts and massive housing as well). I wish that Wallis would at least acknowledge some of these inconsistencies in his response. Edwards' public failing adds yet another nail to the public crisis of trust in politicians and in those who want to lead with integrity.
Posted by: Bonnie | August 15, 2008 9:13 AM
Rather than piling on, I think that our prayers should be with the Edwards family with the hope that this terrrible failure (yes sin) can somehow be forgiven and that the marriage can survive so that John Edwards can be a comfort to his wife as she continues to battle cancer.
His transgression is the only one that the New Testament justifies divorce, so Mrs. Edwards would be perfectly justified in doing so. During this political year, we have witnessed several candidates enter the race with that on their resume.
Posted by: Sister Marie | August 15, 2008 9:37 AM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with judging someone else's actions or calling sin out when we see it. Every commentary on this blog judges other people in some way or another.
But we should examine our own motives for doing so. Are we reveling in someone else's downfall who we don't like because of their sin? Personally, I think Edwards is a smarmy huckster who decided to become a crusader for the poor because he thought it would pay off for him in his political career. But this affair is just sad - not a time for reveling.
Even while we judge, we should have compassion on those who fall short, because we all do at some time or another.
Posted by: Eric | August 15, 2008 11:01 AM
Art --
I think I understand where you're coming from, but how do you know what "guidance" is really good for you? As Squeaky pointed out, Edwards really believed he was above getting caught. Most loving parents would say, "I just want to shake him and say, 'Don't you see what you're doing to yourself?'"
Besides not being righteous, our Bible teaches that our hearts are deceitful. Most of us have experienced that to one degree or another -- we thought God was leading us one way only to learn we were dead wrong, or maybe we trusted someone we shouldn't have, etc.
Posted by: frankie | August 15, 2008 11:21 AM
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
John Edwards is a good man who made a terrible mistake. He and Elizabeth handled this back in 2006...End of story...
This would be a non-story in Europe. Why is our media wallowing in it day after day?
Wouldn't it be great if our tabloidesque/voyeuristic media gave the same attention to issues that it gives to gossip? What a concept!
Posted by: Kathy Callan | August 15, 2008 12:09 PM
"DITE: ?"
Yeah, I probably didn't use the best choice of words. The point I meant to convey was: because I am flawed and human it is difficult for me to feel/understand God's grace and his ability to forgive Edwards.
"John Edwards is a good man who made a terrible mistake. He and Elizabeth handled this back in 2006...End of story..."
Wrong. He decided to run for presidency of the United States of America after this happened. This clearly shows that keeping this a family matter took a backseat to his conceded desire for power.
And our media has hardly wallowed in it. Again, his cowardly public confession was timed to minimize media coverage. And there was not a peep about this story by the major media outlets for a year while the evidence of this affair began to compound against him.
Posted by: DITE | August 15, 2008 12:31 PM
Hi Frankie,
My own experience is that my heart *can* be deceitful at times, but when it is, I pay the price in the consequences to my spirit.
My heart can also *not* be deceitful at times, but just the opposite, leading me to wonderful thoughts, feelings and actions.
For me to take the statement, "The heart is deceitful," as an absolute, would leave me without any of the gorgeous discoveries of my heart, and thus without my spirit. And thus, without Life Itself.
As for John Edwards, if his only real concern was getting caught rather than understanding that what he was doing was wrong, I still feel the deepest part of him--his spirit--would be absolutely miserable for what he was doing to his wife and family, even if they never found out. How could he *not* be? He certainly isn't an unfeeling person, as shown by the issues he's given his attention to.
If he needs the Bible to tell him he's doing wrong when nothing within him is telling him that, then he's beyond redemption, since there's nothing in him to redeem. And I don't believe that about him.
Anyway, bottom line: as I said in my first posting, I know what God wants for me by how it affects my spirit. The only way I'd let an outside source override that is if I were terrified into allowing it (i.e., threats of eternal damnation).
And I know more than anything else that God does *not* want me to be terrified by God into becoming what God created me to be. Again, no healthy loving parent wants to terrify their child into doing what's best for him or her. And that, I believe, includes God.
Posted by: Art | August 15, 2008 12:37 PM
Kathy,
I understand your point about what the U.S. media chooses to devote attention to. I cringe when they devote more time to Edward’s haircuts than his policy proposals. But I'd rather have the media "wallow" in this affair for a few days than simply let it pass without comment. When societies cease to be upset by outrageous or sinful behavior it's not a good sign. I’d be more concerned if we all just shrugged our shoulders and said “eh, it’s just another affair, different strokes for different folks.” Public judgment helps to keep people honest.
Posted by: Eric | August 15, 2008 12:58 PM
At the great risk of becoming a "Johnny-one-note" on this blog, I see the Edward's sexual folly ad being one in a series of similar follies that have been committed by our 'politicians' down through the history of our Republic - - indeed, the recorded history of 'secular leadership', perioe.
And so, I reiterate the stance of many Anabapist, Pietist, Pacifists down through the ages: avoid entangling oneself with governments. And that includes voting for those who would govern. When we are involved with selecting men (and women) for secular leadership, we are ipso facto walking further and further from the Kingdom of God. Simply voting does this. "Seek ye first the Kingdom. . . ."
Posted by: joekc | August 15, 2008 3:32 PM
I think we are far too quick to judge the behavior of others, and not nearly forgiving enough. I also think this is none of the public's business. It's is ceertainly not mine, and I have no right to know it. I resent the American press's lust for lust, and I think it does a disservice to our country. Imagine where our country would be if the press had gone after FDR, Ike, JFK, and Eleanor Roosevelt (to switch genders for a minute and remind myself that it isn't just men who sin)? John Edwards' career may be ruined becaus of the press, and that would be a serious loss for the country.
But more personally, I agree with Jim that the Edwards' right to privacy needs to be respected so that they can heal -- and love again.
Shame on the press for its own lust (and greed!).
Posted by: Peter C. McDonald | August 15, 2008 4:13 PM
I am sick and tired of the North American male's seeming inability to keep his zipper up. Where is self-control? Surely we should require that basic characteristic of ourselves and, in particular, all our politicians.
And if Edwards cannot control himself in a situation such as this, what guarantee do we have that he can control himself in matters of serious national interest?
Posted by: David J. Hitchcock | August 15, 2008 4:45 PM
This is a private affair for the Edwards family, not for us. I feel this way no matter which political party leader has committed the major faux pas.
Knowing several very bright, successful people, I would say that what they do in their personal lives does not always match the IQ points that they possess. Think of Bill Clinton--very bright man, very bad personal choice (Monica Lewinsky). This seems to be separate from their ability to lead others/think/make good corporate decisions.
Posted by: ChurchLady | August 15, 2008 7:12 PM
I'd normally agree with the people who say that this is a private affair. I abhor how the media digs into the personal lives of famous people looking for dirt. However, in this specific case, this ceased to be a private affair when Edwards asked people to judge him based on his personal character.
During the campaign this is what he said:
"But, I think every single candidate for president, Republican and Democratic have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation for America to engage in to look at what kind of human beings each of us are, and what kind of president we'd make."
He made a point of holding his person life, not just his policy ideas, up as something by which people should judge him. He got what he asked for.
Posted by: Eric | August 16, 2008 1:14 PM
There were eight Democratic candidates running for President while John Edwards was having an affair with an overpaid, underqualified staff member. If either he or his wife had an ounce of integrity he would have dropped out when he confessed his "sin" to her. Instead they kept up the charade that he should be presdient, putting the entire Democratic party and the Presidency in jeopordy. I haven't seen either of them show an ounce of remorse. For all the staff members of the other candidates who believed in what they were doing and sacrificed mightily on behalf of their candidates this is a travesty. For the other Democratic candidates who might have run a different race if this lying sleazebag wasn't in the campaign it's a travesty. Jim Wallis can feel compassion for his friend, but his excuses are pathetic. John Edwards in his statement said he was becoming "Narcissistic." You don't become narcissistic - you are a narcissist - it's a peronality disorder that is difficult to treat. John Edwards and his wife should take their dirty money and get help - and one day perhaps be in a position to help other people, but right now I hope they stay as far away from American politics as possible. We have enough problems without them.
Posted by: Stephanie | August 16, 2008 1:42 PM
Amen, Stephanie and Eric,
Churchlady: In the case of Bill Clinton, it wasn't just a case of a bad choice (singular)--there were a whole string of bad choices, to woefully understate it. According to the accounts I understand to be true, he used and abused Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broderick (rape!!), Jennifer Flowers, and Paula Jones. When does someone's "private" character disqualify them from any position of leadership (not to mention fawning political adoration and acceptance by people who should know better)?
Posted by: Rog | August 16, 2008 2:18 PM
Rog,
If the voters had known Clinton's history before he was elected perhaps history would have been changed. Once again a wife was complicit in hiding the truth about her husband and the results were a diaster -- the diaster being Bush - the anti Clinton. How do we know John Edwards really cares about poverty -- because he says he does? He's said a lot of things that aren't true. He will say and do anything to get what he wants. Just another politician? Well, that's OUR fault. If you know the truth about a person and ignore it (as with Bush being re-elected and now McCain) you get what you deserve. This magical thinking on the part of the American people that what they see in an ad or hear on cable TV or AM radio is true, is laziness. The blood of thousands of innocent people is on our hands. Forgiving John Edwards isn't the issue - holding him accountable for what he's done is correct. If I had volunteered for him, or given him money - I'd be looking at joining a class action lawsuit.
Posted by: Stephanie | August 16, 2008 4:40 PM
It is disappointing that John Edwards has sinned (as all do) and that it is publicly displayed like a medieval stoning. However, that is not the issue in politics or religion. It appears now that the only litmus test for being a Christian is to be pro-life. Last night John McCain was heralded by the media for his wonderful showing of Christianity and how well he soothed evangelical Christians. He has commited adultery, but his is apparently not a big deal since he is pro-life. Can this really be an intelligent religious community we are dealing with? John Edwards is being slayed over this, although his championing for the poor has done great things (whether you believe him or not). Since when is the Christian attitude one of "defeat them...hunt them down to the gates of hell!!!". Where has all the compassion in Christianity gone.
Posted by: Rita | August 17, 2008 12:15 PM
Rita,
I think you know this, but the media and envangelicals are not the same group of people. The media are "slaying" John Edwards over his affair. I haven't heard "evangelicals" talk much about it at all.
As you noted, it's the media who was lauding John McCain for his performance last night. Then you interpret this to mean that he's won over evangelicals. Again, just because the media thought McCain did a good job doesn't say anything about what evangelicals think of McCain or his past behavior. In case you missed it, evangelicals aren't particularly taken with McCain, that's why he's had to make so many efforts to actually win them over.
Posted by: Ryan | August 17, 2008 3:01 PM
Brian, you're wrong.
1. The woman was not "paid considerably more than market rate" for the video productions.
2. Edwards is not "profiting from his poverty platform...." On the contrary, talking about poverty is unpopular and does not gain votes. Despite advice from his political advisors, he spent two years of his life founding and directing the Center for Poverty, Work, and Opportunity. Anyone who's read eye-opening Ending Poverty in America knows that Edwards understands this issue very well.
3. If we expect perfection, we will never have leaders, spouses, children, or friends--and will feel unable to live in our own skins. If other candidates were held to the same standard you're holding Edwards, we'd have few, if any, left standing.
JRE made mistakes, but who hasn't? He didn't kill anyone, rape the environment, further impoverish the poor, rob retirees of their pensions, or take health care away from children.
He stood up to big corporations, and THAT's why he is being attacked.
Others have behaved far worse and never been subject to this kind of scrutiny and ridicule.
My hat is off to Jim Wallis for his fair piece.
Posted by: Marla | August 18, 2008 3:11 PM
Supporters of John Edwards' poverty initiatives, is this article off base? Has John responded?
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/08/hbc-90003382
Posted by: Rog | August 18, 2008 6:06 PM
As an Edwards financial supporter and reader of SOJO, I was deeply disturbed by Edwards' affair; similarly, I am disappointed by Rev. Wallis's commentary and the SOJO cover. Edwards deceived the nation; therefore, it would be best, it seems to me, to avoid the gloss of his infraction. His confession was "dramatic," yes, but moreso because he publicly denied and excoriated the truthful reports. There is no honor in Edwards actions, thus, the spin about Edwards from Rev. Wallis, for whom I have great admiration, injures his own credibility. As the popular saying goes: "It is what it is. . . don't spin it into something else."
Posted by: JGilbert | August 25, 2008 10:06 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?