Politics
A Tale of Two Governors
by Clay Staggs
The Michael Jackson freakshow isn’t the only game in town, it seems. Just a day before MJ’s death, Mark Sanford, the governor of South Carolina, admitted that he’d been having an affair. Not just any affair either. The governor had disappeared without telling his wife or his staff where he was going (or telling them a lie - that he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail). Turns out he had jetted off to Argentina for a rendezvous with his mistress.
Now, obviously, this is very bad. Infidelity doesn’t really go over very well with the electorate in the US (unlike France, where it’s some sort of badge of manhood). However, Bill Clinton survived it politically, so perhaps there was a chance for a man once considered to be a possible presidential candidate. Then, the news leaked out that Mrs. Sanford knew about the affair, having discovered it in a letter from the paramour to the Governor. They had separated; he was told to end the affair, and said he would.
But he didn’t. He apparently went on his jaunt to Argentina afterwards. So, today, Mark Sanford grants an interview to the AP, which results in the following:
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford declared his Argentine mistress his soul mate Tuesday but said he is committed to reconciling with his wife in hopes of saving his family and what is left of his political career.
Sanford, who also admitted meeting his lover more times than he had previously claimed, told The Associated Press in emotional interviews that he "crossed lines" with a handful of other women during 20 years of marriage.
But he said he never went as far as he did with Maria Belen Chapur, the woman at the center of the scandal that has derailed his once-promising political future.
Even with the latest revelations, Sanford maintains he is fit to govern and has no plans to resign. And he insisted his relationship with Chapur, whom he met at an open air dance spot in Uruguay eight years ago, was more than just sex.
"This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story," Sanford said. "A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day."
Wow. That ought to make Mrs. Sandford come running back. The paramour is his soul mate? Are you serious? Does he really expect reconciliation by saying something like that, much less in public? Seems doubtful, no?
So, strike one potential Republican governor off the list for 2012. I say good riddance. Better to know about this stuff before the voting starts. Besides, there’s another Republican governor to think about. How about this?
Yes, indeed she is running. The whole photo shoot for Runner’s World, complete with a shot of her holding Trig, is here.
Watch out, Barry.
Posted by Clay Staggs at June 30, 2009 04:09 PM
When I read about Gov. Sanford and the “soul mate” thing…especially the parts about what a tragic love story his affair is….I wanted to …well…puke. What an idiot! If you ever wondered about his possibility as a presidential candidate…well…he has displayed something like total stupidity here…even if the electorate could overlook the affair like the French….it would be hard to overlook the absense of intellect.
This post is so hurtful, I don’t feel that the woman caught in adultery, or Micheal Jackson, or Mark Sanford or I could ever have it together enough and are so sinful, we could never never fit in to your church. Maybe there is some church around somewhere that would not even be looking at our sin, but only our need, and would not gleefully and sarcastically display it to their fellow churchgoers.
Will, I’d like to respond to what you’ve said, because I think you’ve missed the point of my post. First and foremost, nothing in this post is intended to comment on who can be a part of our church. Our church (like any true church) is made up of sinners who are painfully aware of their own sin and rely NOT on their own righteousness, but the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us by the sheer grace of God for their justification.
My point is not to call out Mark Sanford for the sin of adultery, or Michael Jackson for whatever sins he’s committed. In Sanford’s case, the point I’m making is that he’s not really committed to reconciling with his wife. Really, if he were, would he have a long public confession with the AP about how his mistress is his true soul mate? How do you suppose that makes her feel, reading that in the Washington Post? What sort of an example is that to their four sons under the age of 20? My point is one of discernment, not judgment. Christians need not abandon common sense in trying to evaluate their leaders. Clearly, Mark Sanford, at this moment, is thinking only about his own felt needs below the belt. And, it does not appear to me that he cares much for the feelings of his family in the way he’s handling this. I think that’s relevant in evaluating a person in public service.
As for the mistress, I didn’t even comment on her role in this at all, other than to point out that she’s the mistress, which is an undeniable fact.
The other aspect of the Sanford situation is the public spectacle of it all. Here the similarity to Jackson is striking. Our modern culture seems to have an insatiable need to put things that should be private matters in the public sphere, and then to obsess over it. Michael Jackson was clearly a disturbed individual, and in many respects, is pitiable. But, with all of his disturbing tendencies on public display, in his death, our culture is celebrating him. My goodness, other than presidents and members, who was the last person you can remember the House of Representatives taking a moment of silence to remember? The point here is that American pop culture is seriously warped. That’s not to judge it - it’s merely to point out a consequence of where man’s soul goes without the influence of the Spirit working to reorient it toward the things of God.
Neither Riverwood nor I condemn anyone for sin - that’s not for us, because we’re such sinners ourselves, and realize that we deserve condemnation. However, we do believe that Christians can interact with and comment upon things in the culture. That’s the point of this blog. I hope you’ll reread my post again with these clarifications in mind, and reconsider the points I tried, perhaps inartfully, to make.
In any event, I appreciate your comment, and hope that you’ll stay a part of our discussions.
Will, perhaps it was my sarcastic comment you were mainly responding too. I felt badly about it before your comment was posted. I do think there is a place for sarcasm, and also frank observation, but not mean-spiritedness…which my comment conveyed. Believe me, I am one hundred percent on board in the belief that we all sin, and sin horribly, day in and day out. I guess my insensitiveness here demonstrates that to me, yet again, and I am sorry. Like Clay, I do not think you would find a condemning spirit or holier-than-thou attitude at Riverwood Church. Quite the contrary. I was just kind of enraged that a man of Govenor Sandford’s stature and responsibilities could be so seemingly self-engulfed in his love affair that he cannot see that his “honesty” about it is so damaging to things he claims he wants to repair, including his political future, his marriage, and his relationship with his children. I have a hard time fathoming how you could say to your mate, “I want to repair our marriage, and I think I can fall in love with you again, but having to give up my soul mate to achieve that end is a tragedy”…and that is essentially what he did say. It was disappointing because I had thought fairly highly of him prior to all that. Still, I regret my tone and thank you for your comment as a deserved rebuke. I just ask you to see it as the mistake of one sinner, not as a representative of the church or its tenor as a whole.
pdrinkard, Thanks! Your honesty refreshes my soul (my sinful soul!) not to mention your transparency and humility, which seem very genuine, although I don’t know you, so it’s just from a distance.
Clay, I see. You are saying I am the one who is wrong. I “missed” YOUR POINT. Clay, were you wrong about anything? I see nowhere that you say you are. Except for that often trumped out, blanket disclaimer: “[we are] sinners who are painfully aware of their own sin and rely NOT on their own righteousness, but the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us by the sheer grace of God for their justification.” What an often heard phrase,said without brokenness, humility, or compassion, or specifics. truly believe that if we really were “painfully aware,” none of us could muster the energy to open our mouth and utter a word about anybody else, and I include myself in that category.
If we don’t start pointing out ourselves and owning openly our own sin, we will be a bunch of Pharisees, meeting each week at our holy clubs calling them “church.” No, the way I read it, church is an ER for desperate people living in poverty (spiritual). Because we know for sure that “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” Our job should be (me included) to be Christ in this sinful, sorry, sick world, and perhaps through my God-enabled, Christ-like life, God will use me in some small way in someone’s life. And I don’t know about you, but I’m not too Christ-like. And apparently this blog in no way implies who can be part of your church. (I said that I wouldn’t “fit in”, i.e, feel comfortable.) But, whether you like it or not, your blogs show what you’re like, and if you notice, highlight, display others’ sins, especially with the tone you used, it says a lot about you, . What on earth gives you the right to say, ” the point I’m making is that he’s not really committed to reconciling with his wife.… . ” and on and on you quote. “My point is one of discernment, not judgment.” I strongly disagree. Discernment would simply lead to recognizing that this man’s judgments and morals are severely flawed. Judgment takes the opportunity to coldly, harshly, describe the details, sarcastically display them, without compassion, as in “Good riddance!”, and somehow sound above it all in the doing. “Clearly, Mark Sanford, at this moment, is thinking only about his own felt needs below the belt.” Yes, that’s pretty clear to everyone, without the help of your blog and all its details and denouncements.
“other than to point out that she’s the mistress, which is an undeniable fact.” Yes, undeniable, so why point it out? “Our modern culture seems to have an insatiable need to put things that should be private matters in the public sphere, and then to obsess over it.” With all due respect, it seems like that’s exactly what you are doing. “The point here is that American pop culture is seriously warped. That’s not to judge it - it’s merely to point out a consequence … ” Sorry, Clay, but you are judging the world, the American pop culture, as if they should be godly, which they have no grace or ability to be.
” I hope you’ll reread my post again with these clarifications in mind, and reconsider the points I tried, perhaps inartfully, to make.” Again, It’s got to be me (who read your post wrong), Mark Sanford and Michael Jackson who are all flawed, wrong, and sinful. The only thing about which you admitted any failure was “perhaps” not expressing your points “artfully.”
Unless the world sees God’s people as flawed and struggling (read “real) but with God’s love, forgiveness, and grace, the world will not come to church. Churches will just be holy clubs. Truly sincerely, Will