Jesus said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. He also said, “Now go and sin no more”.
Keen Bible readers will know that Jesus said both things on the same occasion. (See John 8:3-11—especially verses 7 and 11 respectively.1) My question is how do we hold and communicate both truths together to a society that denies the second statement’s relevance and does not think we Christians believe the first?
Those in my neck of the woods know that a senior New South Wales Member of Parliament from the Wollongong area has just resigned his cabinet post. A TV station revealed he’d been engaging in sexual activity outside his marriage, and it turns out he has been keeping this conduct secret from his wife and sons for a couple of decades. One feels deep sadness for the whole family.
Normally Australians don’t feel much charity towards our politicians and their woes. So what has been notable is the amount of sympathy that has been poured out not only on his family, but on the parliamentarian himself. In particular, one keeps hearing a near-continuous refrain that “His sexual preferences have no bearing on his fitness for office” (to quote one commentator): it’s his private life, and apparently the only people who might be legitimately upset are his wife and children. (And possibly not, if he’d never been exposed.)
This knee-jerk reaction shows that our society has completely lost its moral foundations. Presumably it’s because they don’t want anyone interfering in their sexual preferences either.
But a moment’s reflection should remind people that, even now in our libertarian society, most of us do not believe that your sexual preferences are always just a private irrelevance—not, for example, if they involve rape, sex with minors, sadism or the use of drugs on an unsuspecting partner.
Still, what about if there’s consent? One might well ask if the betrayed wife was given a chance to consent.
However, even when consent is claimed, we also know that true consent is problematic when there is an exchange of money or an uneven power balance—such as with a doctor or a priest engaging in sex with his clients or congregants. Most especially, for a holder of high public office, engaging in sexual behaviour one wants to keep secret may open that person to the risk of blackmail.
Furthermore, a healthy democracy relies on the free flow of reliable information. In particular, we hate not only the broken promises, but also the misleading spin that many politicians often foist on us. So can we really accept the claim “It’s just a private matter” when a politician deceives his spouse about adultery? Any such behaviour—even more so if it’s prolonged—will have involved a pattern of often complex deception to hide the secrets. In addition, there is no guarantee (and indeed, there is every likelihood) that the art of deception practised in private will be used when there is pressure in public; that same art could be used to mislead voters over policy and administration.
I agree that politicians, and especially their families, should be given a fairer degree of privacy in their lives. But there is a difference between privacy and secrecy. Furthermore, we cannot partition our lives neatly. Character counts: what we do in private often has public implications. If someone cannot be trusted to keep their public marriage vows to the person they claim to love the most, then why should the public expect them to keep their promises and be honest with us?
So we need to say to our society that moral standards matter in regards to marital faithfulness and personal honesty. We must continue to proclaim God’s law as true. And we need to say that repentance is needed—for all of us. Just as Jesus did, we need to say to people like the woman caught in adultery, “go, and from now on sin no more” (John 8:11).
But here’s the other problem: how can Christians say this without chucking stones? How can we speak these truths into our world without sounding self-righteous or being harshly judgemental? In particular, how will the individual men and women caught in adultery hear the gospel word of grace?
As it happens, as a constituent and community leader, I had an appointment with this particular parliamentarian to discuss some current political issues with him—the threat to SRE (special religious education) in schools from the current ethics trial, and an appeal for tighter licensing laws to reduce alcohol-related violence. He is known as a hard worker, and his office had been very prompt in responding to my concern. However, my appointment fell in the 24 hours after he was exposed, and, understandably, his office cancelled all engagements that day.
But I wondered if, while scrolling through his list of appointments to see which ones he could cancel, he spotted the Reverend So-and-so on the list and thought about how to respond. Would he have said, “Good: a Christian pastor is just the person I need to talk to right now”, or would he have said, “That’s the last person in the world I want to see”? I suspect that, like most people, he would have thought, “Cancel the meeting with the Reverend!”
How sad. I’m sad because I really want people to know that Jesus is willing to say, “Neither do I condemn you”. I want them to know that God demonstrated his own love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom 5:8).
We cannot afford to be silent about our society’s moral madness. We need to bring the prophetic voice of God’s truth to our world. But if I am to be in a position to share the gospel of God’s grace, I cannot be known as someone who only wants to throw stones; instead, I need to be known—just like my master—as a friend of sinners—indeed, as a humbled and broken sinner myself.
We must not be the first to throw stones if we wish to call people to leave their life of sin. We must not rush to condemn when we want to tell people there is no condemnation in Christ.
Right now, apart from praying for this man and his family, perhaps the best way forward is by telling the story of Jesus in John 8. People are often happy to be reminded that it was Jesus who said, “Let he who is without sin be the first to throw a stone”. Then we can remind them that it was the same compassionate Jesus who also challenged us to go and leave our lives of sin.
1 This incident was almost certainly not a part of the original Gospel of John, not being found in the earliest existing manuscript copies. However, I incline to the view that it is probably a real episode from Jesus’ life that was retained somewhere in oral tradition until it was inserted into some manuscripts of the Gospel of John a bit later. It fits the time prior to the destruction of the temple, and reflects the tension over the law between Jesus, the scribes and Pharisees. Christians down through the ages have certainly heard the authentic voice of Jesus in these grace-filled verses. But I think similar points could be made from other episodes, such as Luke 7:36-50 and Luke 19:1-10.
Thanks again, Sandy, for another great article. Relevant, needed and applicable.
I hope you still do get a chance to meet him, Sandy.
I think the issue is complicated by the fact that the journalist concerned had reasons other than public interest to raise the matter.
The issue of what to do about it if you know is another one. After a similar political scandal many years ago, I talked to a politician who had counselled the man in question to stop committing adultery. The man took no notice. So what do you do? Tell his wife? I think most of us would flinch from that, and so did this politician.
Hi Ellen, and thanks for commenting (you too Andy). Yes, I certainly plan to request a replacement appointment, since he is continuing as a local member. It may be there is a chance to talk about more than the particular social issues. Certainly I would like to speak the truth in love – on all matters.
I am not fully convinced that the silence from the public in condemning his behaviour indicates an acceptance of his moral choices. I suspect it may in fact be fear of responding negatively given possible threats and intimidation from the gay lobby, in much the same way most of our community has gone very quiet on critiquing Islam.
Hi David, I think you are probably right. You may have noticed by original article made absolutely no mention of the homosexual nature of this man’s adultery. That was a deliberate choice, because precisely the same points could be made about a previous minister in this government with this heterosexual adultery.
Nevertheless, the man who committed adultery with a pretty young woman received less sympathy than this man my article was about, and you are probably correct that fear of being seen as homophobic may be part of that.