« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

When Mary Magdalene was caught in the act of adultry and brought to Jesus, he forgave her sins.  When Jesus rose from the dead, no person saw the risen Jesus before she did.  She was then commanded to tell the other followers of Jesus that he is risen.  Jesus, chose the former adulterer to be his first messanger to spread the gospel of his death and resurection.

Folks who cannot forgive a person who committed adultry and later sought forgiveness can not really and honestly call themselves true followers of Christ.  Because that is what Christ did.

Some claim that this forgiveness only can take place once.  Let us look at what Jesus taught.  He was asked how many times to forgive someone who sinned, and said 70 times 7 times…far more than 1 or 3.  Some claim that multiple adultries is a different case.  That, again is not what Jesus taught.

Jesus meet the Samaritan woman at the well.  She had 5 husbands, meaning that she was divorced 4 times; and the man she was with at the time was not her husband.  Meaning she was far more of an adulterer and divorced far more people than Gingrich.  And yet, because of her many of the people in the town began to believe in jesus.

The truth of the matter is that all the folks who say that they cannot forgive or cannot support Gingrich based on his personal failings of 25 years ago, are not Christian conservatives.  In fact, they take a possition akin to that of the Pharisees. 

Newt Gingrich is not a perfect man.  He is not a perfect candidate.  It is fair to attack or critisize him.  What is not fair is for someone to not forgive and then call themself a Christian.  Christianity teaches forgiveness.  It teaches that leaders are people too, they are imperfect, and yet they too deserve forgiveness and mercy.  Especially when they turn from their sin, repent, seek forgiveness from God, and change their life to no longer continue the sin.  When a man goes to Christ and confesses his sins, and Christ says to go and sin no more; and he does that….should Christians not follow the lead of Christ and forgive the man? 

The religious point of view that objects to this is that of the Pharisees.  The Pharisees do good deeds in public and seek the praise of men for those deeds.  When other candidates claim that they should be president because they are faithful to their wives, but not Gingrich, they are sharing the viewpoint of Pharisees; not of Christ. 

Many religious leaders in Iowa and elsewhere believe in Christ Jesus.  They live their lives trying to follow him.  Many of them are considering Gingrich as potentially their pick for the nomination.  Those people who question why, need to only look at his record as a leader and his message and agenda.  Gingrich is pro-life and pro-family; he has been for his entire career.  He is a loyal husband now, a father, and a grandfather.  He is a person who made mistakes, but Christians forgive mistakes.

Those candidates who claim forgiveness is not Christian, will find it impossible to get endorcements or support from real Christian leaders; those Christian leaders believe in and trust in the saving blood of Jesus Christ, and believe in the forgiveness of sins.  So much so, that many says the Apostles Creed, the centeral definition of the Christian Faith, which says:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven,and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.  I believe in the Holy Spirit,the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

Respectfully, I submit that attacks on Gingrich’s personal mistakes of 25 years ago are not reflective of who he is today.  He has sought forgiveness from God, and admits to his faults.  Christians, like me, believe in the forgiveness of sins.  Apparently, some running for the GOP nomination do not forgive Gingrich.  They use his mistakes of 25 years ago to attack him.  Jesus teaches not to judge and says we will be judged if we judge others.  Who is following Jesus?  Gingrich who sinned and asked for forgiveness, and changed, or those who refuse to forgive his sins of 25 years ago, and seek to become president by attacking him on those faults he long ago recieved forgiveness on from God.  Some, like myself, pray the Our Father, which goes:

Our Father, Who art in Heaven, Hallowed by thy name.  They kingdom come.  Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.  Give us this day our daily bread.  And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliever us from evil. [For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever and ever.] Amen.

I end with this final remark:  I do think it is fair to ask is this man currently living in sin.  Is he currently an adulterer.  Is he currently a man of faith.  But mistakes of 25 years ago are not a fair basis to judge a man today.  If a man asked for forgiveness, and went and sinned no more, he has my forgiveness also.  Who am I to hold against a man what which Jesus has forgiven?  I object to claiming to be Christian, and yet attacking a man who has clearly changed, based on his personal sins of the past.  Sins he sought forgiveness from God for.  I believe in forgiveness, and I forgive.  I expect any man running for the GOP nomination for president to do the same.  I have real questions about the faith of a man who does not believe that Jesus saves, and that as Christians we have the duty to forgive. 

Respectfully, I submit that the attacks on Gingrich’s mistakes in the past are unChristian.  I believe they are intended by politicians to help them win election, and by others to help their candidate win.  They are selfish attacks.  The men who never cheated on their wives did the right thing in being faithful.  They have their happy marriage as a reward.  Gingrich has to live for the rest of his life with the effects of his sins in his personal and public life.  That said, in so much as I am a follower of Christ, I follow him in forgiving the man who seeks Christ’s forgiveness.  Gingrich has rebuilt his life and eliminated this sin from his life.  I applaud that, and forgive his past misteps, just as I forgive other people who have made the same mistakes and changed their lives. 

I respectfully understand that some do not agree.  Many in this country are not Christian.  Some others are culturally Christian, but do not believe in the saving message of Jesus Christ.  They think that once a man has sinned, he can never recieve forgiveness.  Others think a man can only be forgiven after he is dead.  I am a Christian, and as such believe that Jesus died for our sins.  Mine, as well and Newts.  I accept Jesus’s death on the cross and payment for sin.  That he has repented and changed is enough for me.  It is a non-issue.  It will be a non-issue for other Christians.

Many are not Christian, and there will be some political price for him.  That is part of life, and something Gingrich will need to life with.  That said, I will not throw stones where Jesus does not throw them.

COMMENTS

  • westcoastpatriette

    Considering Newt’s marital conduct is fair game when questioning if he is qualified for the Presidency and has nothing to do with whether or not we have forgiven him. Plenty of people have feigned coming to Jesus in order to be seen in a better light and not because they have truly repented–and many people simply don’t buy that his claim to be truly sorry is real or that he will not continue down the same path in the future. Forgiveness has nothing to do with trust which must be earned.

    The woman caught in adultery was about to lose her life if she was judged by the law. Newt is merely being considered for public office and should his history of infidelity cause him to be rejected by the people, he certainly is in no danger of losing his life for it.

    I would appreciate it if people such as yourself, chrysostome15, would stop trying to condemn Christians who wisely take into account Newt’s character issues.

    In my experience of counseling many Christians through the years, as well as my personal journey where I have had to come to terms with my own sinfulness, the one key to look for in determining if a person is sincere in their repentance is humility. In my opinion, Newt would not put us in this position of having to decide if we can trust him if he were truly humble about the pain he has caused through his reckless past. In other words, he would decide against running to spare us the agony of wondering if he can be trusted.

    • chrysostom15

      Is well known for his horrible past before he changed his life….was he dissqualified as a good Bishop? No. A man just do what God calls him to do. Was David disqualified? Would the world be a better place if people who sinned never tried to improve the world we live in?

      Peter denied Jesus 3 times, but went on to become a Bishop and importaint disciple of Christ. He took on an importaint leadership possition, like St. Augustine, and like David.

      A person should not stop seeking to do good because he did bad in the past. For Gingrich to not run for president based on his mistakes of the past would actually be to multiple his sins.

      With all due respect, humility is seeing our selves as God sees us. God sees each of us as someone who has potential to do good. For Newt to fail to do good because of his sins of the past, would be a lack of humility.

      In my opinion, Newt is the best chance this country has to turn itself around. I think he would do a better job as pressident than Romney, Obama, or anyone else with a reasonable chance to win. He is more ready in my opinion than Perry or Bachmann.

      I respect that people may not agree with Newt on some issues or policies. Maybe they want a governor, rather than Speaker Gingrich. Maybe they like another candidate more. Maybe they have their own moral code.

      I do not respect the continue missrepresentation of people to claim they are Chrsitian, but they judge with non-Christian standards.

      History and the Bible show the God used imperfect men to be great leaders. St. Paul went around killing Christians only to latter become a leader of Christians. Many made the same arguement as you do about Newt. Yet, St. Paul — within a few days of his converstion — was accepted. Soon later he became a great Christian leader. Should he have not put Christians in the possition of having to decide if they could trust him?

      He asked for their trust, and was given it. Not after 25 years or even 25 days. They forgave his mistakes, accepted him. He became a leader.

      Unlike Paul and David, Gingrich never killed an innocent man. Yet, St. Paul — who killed innocent people — was given a place of leadership and importaince far greater than president of the United States. David –who killed an innocent man to sleep with his wife — served not as a president with checks and balances, but as a king with no balance or check for his office. Yet, the Bible praises him as a good king and one who’s heart was with God. Why? In Christianity, we do not judge a man for his faults when he turns from them and seeks God’s forgiveness.

      Your arguement is not a Christian arguement, and your logic not Christian. It is simply not the Christian way attack a man based on his failings of 25 years ago — failings he no longer has, has repented of, and has seek God’s forgiveness on. Forgiveness is not a mere idea; it is a real thing for Christians, as real as Jesus’s death on the Cross.

      So, my Bibically-based view remains that attacks on Gingrich’s past personal failings are not comming from Bible-believing Christians; they are comming from folks with a different moral view, and their intent is to attack Gingrich, and not to help the country.

      I do not agree with what Gingrich did 25 years ago; but then again, neither does he. It is not Christian to hold against a man what God has forgiven.

      • westcoastpatriette

        but you are presenting inaccuracies in every bible case you cite.

        I could really care less if you think my arguments are not Christian. You have just proven that you have your head screwed on backwards and God knows what else might be motivating you to write so many lies about people in the bible in order to justify your defense of Newt–a proven cad of the first order. Got something you’re desperately trying to hide yourself? That’s what you sound like to me.

        Your form of “Christianity” is phony and unbiblical. Spare me.

        • Finrod

          So where are these lies about people in the Bible (real Christians capitalize that word) in the text that you are criticizing? If you can’t point to the actual lies that you are claiming are there, then you’re just blowing smoke. Put up or shut up.

          • westcoastpatriette

            Some diaries are so poorly and recklessly written that they don’t deserve the time it would take to correct all of the inaccuracies.

            Do you have a problem with that? Too bad.

          • barleycorn

            When you make a direct charge of :

            “You have just proven that you have your head screwed on backwards and God knows what else might be motivating you to write so many lies about people in the bible in order to justify your defense of Newt?a proven cad of the first order.”

            Then you owe an explanation and some examples. Otherwise you will be presumed to be the liar.

          • westcoastpatriette

            Why should I take the time to correct so many inaccuracies that the diary is not worth acknowledging much less giving credence?

            Do your own research. Haven’t you learned a lesson from what I taught you about King David?

  • Lucas Black

    I did not know that Liz Taylor lived in Samaria.

  • sticktotheconstitution

    but a lot of us simply don’t think that enough Americans will trust him with that kind of a past to elect him over Obama

    I think cheating on your wife is one of the worst things a man can do. He may be genuine in his appeal for forgiveness, and although I’ve forgiven him, I’ve made Ron Paul my choice for the nomination

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    The woman caught in adultery in John 8 probably wasn’t Mary Magdelene. In fact, she is not named. Additionally, it is an open dispute as to whether this particular passage is a genuine biblical passage anyway. It may be, but it may not be. It’s not good to rest a biblical argument on a dubious piece of scripture (it’s like basing a belief in the Trinity on 1 John 5:7, which was a fraudulent scribal gloss).

    Continuing on, let me get to the crux of the matter, given your pitiful scriptural exegesis. Jesus Christ is not saying that one has to be entirely blameless and without sin to make moral judgments, or else it would be impossible for anyone to be a judge or a juror for anyone, given that all have sinned (see Romans 3:23), apart from Jesus Christ Himself. Specifically, what is being said is that those who bring up charges and serve as witnesses against others for sins like adultery cannot be guilty of the same sin themselves.

    We note, for example, that the woman brought to Jesus (whomever she was) was caught in adultery. She was apparently not married (her husband is not mentioned anywhere), and people cannot be caught in the act of adultery unless they are caught in the act with someone else. The man, or men, that she had committed adultery with were not brought in for judgment, only her. This was in violation of biblical law, which required both the man and woman guilty of adultery to be punished by stoning (see Deuteronomy 22:22-24), and also required that capital punishment come after the testimony of two eyewitnesses (see Deuteronomy 19:15). Without any witnesses to legally prosecute the adultery case under biblical law, and with the unwillingness of Christ to condemn the guilty woman, she was forgiven and told to ‘sin no more.’

    Now, how is this relevant to the Newt Gingrich problem. Was he not one of the same sorts of Pharisees who sought to condemn Bill Clinton for infidelity (and lying about it to Congress) even as he himself was engaged in adulterous behavior with Callista? Did he not attempt to cast stones while he was in fact guilty of the exact sin that he was publicly condemning? Is this not rank hypocrisy, and sufficient reason for someone to consider Newt unethical and unfit to hold the noble office of President of the United States? Might not an uncharitable commenter here say something like, “Take the beam out of your own eye so that you might see well enough to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye” (see Matthew 7:3-5)

    • avagreen

      Also, an important issue in this case is that this was most likely a small village and most likely some (or all) of her customers were holding the stones. Therefore, “he who is w/o sin…..” would have hit them right between the eyes.

      Yes, Newt was being hypocritical here. So many folk have no idea of how to use this passage, and it’s pulled out way too often by non-Christians (not saying this is the case here) to poke fingers at Christians who use the bible to point out faults.

      • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

        And I whole heartedly agree–this passage is usually used out of context to say that it is improper to make moral judgments because one is an imperfect person, but that is precisely what is not being said in this passage. Instead, it is telling us that we should not condemn others for those sins that we share, and that is something all of us need to be very wary of. As Perry said in his Leno visit about Herman Cain, people can handle anything except for a hypocrite.