After four years as a Harding student . . . and three years as an M. Div. student at Harding’s graduate school . . . and seven years as the preacher of the College Church . . . we get to go back to the campus for a wedding I’m doing. Though I haven’t been invited to campus since 1991, there is still much about the school that we hold dear.
- - - -
Just read part of the interview with Newt Gingrich where he seeks to explain why it wasn’t hypocrisy for him to attack Bill Clinton about Monica Lewinsky while he himself was having an extramarital affair. If he can pull that off, we need to assign him the task of solving the conflicts in the Middle East.
Have fun!!
Newt Gingrich for president
I’m not a big Newt fan myself, but is simplistic to equate Clinton and Gingrich. Different men in different situations. One happened to have broken the law. Both probably have no business leading the country. But hypocrisy in this case would have required Newt to lie under oath while being criminally investigated. Whether Newt pursued it properly is another matter. But it’s not hypocrisy, despite public opinion.
I’m sorry; I think Gingrich’s actions reflected hypocrisy. He could have withdrawn himself from any and all the proceedings. There were many other Republicans who could have led the impeachment.
Hoping the day will come in America when political affiliations do not trump personal integrity.
Oh, c’mon, Kyle… are you advocating for degrees (lesser or greater) of deception and sin? What Clinton did was wrong, and I’m convinced (others may not be) that no one knows that more than him. He took a huge lashing from conservatives who were supposedly taking the moral high ground, but as we’ve seen in recent years, no party has a claim on the moral high ground. Fraud. Racism. CIA leaks. Adultery. Cover-ups. Justified military aggression. Whatever the sin, both parties are guilty.
To me, this reinforces the reality that the kingdoms of this world are run by broken people who desperately need the grace of God on their lives. It also reinforces that as followers of Jesus, our ultimate hope must be put elsewhere.
ACU’s Graduate School of Theology get many former Harding students, and just let me say that they are invariably well prepared. Their Greek and Hebrew are good and their attention to detail in the biblical text is typically outstanding. They have obviously received some fine instruction at Harding.
I agree with all of you that Newt didn’t have high moral ground. But hypocrisy to me implies you judge others with the judgement you withhold from yourself. In Christianity, we are all sinners. But we don’t expect there to be no earthly judgement. We demand our leaders be held to certain sets of rules. At a minimum we demand they be held to the rule of law. We all can find fault in our leaders morality. Remember, I said I’m no fan of Newt. But we must all accept at a minimum that those who break the laws of our country be subjected to the judgement of those laws. Spiritually speaking, Newt is not any better off than Clinton. Neither are any of us. But let’s not discard our legal system because of it. If you read or listened to the interview, Gingrich claims he wasn’t judging Clinton for the affair. I know that seems difficult to believe, but who am I to judge?
Preacher Mike,
Please, please, please get a photo of you standing under Joel Osteen’s former globe. It’s in the American Opulence Center, you can’t miss it.
Will the wedding be in the new Conference Center-Wedding Chapel overlooking the front lawn?
Newt’s defense is that at the time he was not judging Clinton personally but just upholding the law with regards to perjury.
Talk about straining the nat and swallowing the camel. A lie is a lie is a lie whether it’s in your personal life or your professional life.
Newt always led us to believe that he was taking the moral high road during the Clinton years when, in fact, he was actually taking a back road that no one knew about.
So now, on the brink of the possibility of launching a Presidential candidacy, Newt thinks it’s a good idea to get everything out on the table up front – confession is a good thing and the conservative right is a forgiving bunch as long as they are not surprised.
I am with Steve – We cannot forget that we are all broken people who desperately need the grace of God in our lives
Right on, Jeff. Harding Graduate is a terrific school.
I still don’t get (and then, I do) the whole this-person-can’t-speak-at-our-school phenomenon. Of course, when it comes to fund raisers, most of the standards go out the window, which drives me bananas. Freed-Hardeman has all sorts of “denominationalists” show up to speak at their $100 a plate dinners; but then their students aren’t taken to the World Mission Workshop because an “instrumentalist” was speaking at the host school, LCU. Did I get that right?
Whose schools are these?!
Kyle is right. Gingrich did not commit purjury before a Federal Grand Jury. The case against Clinton had nothing to do with sex or affairs. No, the cheif law enforcement officer in the land lied to a Federal Judge under oath. That should trouble us. But no, all we get from the press is how this episode was “all about sex.” I’m not condoning Gingrich’s behavior at all. I just don’t see where it has ANYthing to do with the impeachment of Bill Clinton. This case is not about private behavior. It’s about government officials neglecting their public duty.
I haven’t been back to Harding since the 2000 Lectureship. I can’t help but wonder what Searcy looks like now. I may never pass that way again, but it would be nice to visit.
Frank, it’s always been interesting to me that we can freely associate with those who are furtherest away from us both socially and theologically, but heaven forbid we associate with those who are closest to us theologically. It’s like the have to prove to ourselves and to others the obvious. If we are so close together then why aren’t we in fellowship and why do we insist on separating ourselves from each other. Once the fence is built, both sides seem to have a stake in maintaining and are willing to shoot anyone in the back who dares to cross. Mike, Jeff Walling and others in our fellowship who dareto cross the fence are simply being shot in the back.
I am afraid that most of the candidates are in the category of Newt (the adultery issue). Rudy is in that category. Romney seems to be clean, and the fact that he is LDS should not matter. It will certainly be interesting. I think Rudy would be best for these dangerous times. He has better experience with anti-terrorism policies. What does everyone think?
Recipe for Serious Blog Banter:
1 Part Harding
1 Part Democrat
1 Part Republican
1 Part Middle East
Mix and Enjoy!
Mike, tie the knot tight for Ryan and Claudia. They are special people.
Both of these men were wrong.
The point that I believe Kyle was trying to make is that Newt did not do anything that would have gotten him impeached. That was my whole problem with the Clinton ordeal anyway. IT WAS NOT ABOUT THE SEX! It was about the fact that he lied under oath. That is a crime. To allow it to happen undermines our entire system. What Newt did was wrong, but not illegal. The fact that Clinton had an affair was not a ground for impeachment. The fact that he lied was. That is the law. It is not God’s law, just man’s. It does not mean that what newt did was any less wrong than what Clinton did in God’s eyes. But legally it is not the same.
My partner and I used to discuss the Clinton situation as it was unfolding, wishing that we were representing him and would have been able to tell him to just admit it and go on. That way, ther would have been absolutely nothing that anyone could have done, other than his wife. As it worked out, he brought the whole mess on himself and was unable to avoid any of the consequences, including, I suspect, the wrath of his wife.
A sad tale, but certainly nothing new.
Even sadder is Newt. He seems to have learned nothing.
Just more great examples of why we should never put our trust in things of this earth.
That’s so true, Charlie. This world will be burned up. We must focus on thinks of Heaven, where our TRUE citizenship is. Here on earth it is all vanity of vanities.
Jesus says “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” Paul states, “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Should we be shocked about hypocrisy in politics? Even Christians sin. We as Christians struggle with sin daily. 1 John 1 tells us if we aren’t honest about sinfulness we lie and we have no fellowship with God. It is by the grace of God through faith that we are saved. Eph 2. I thank God so much for that grace.
Joel,
Don’t forget to throw in just a dash of Nazi. That always helps the blog.
My opinion is that the whole thing is broken! Of course men in power are going to be having affairs! They are having affairs for the same reason they are seeking high office. They love power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely (or at least attracts the absolutely corrupt).
Oops. Just noticed that Jeff was talking about Harding in Searcy, not Memphis. But Harding Grad is still a great school; I’m sure Harding Undergrad is too.
Nice observations, Joel M. Since we’re talking about it, I seriously wonder what an insider says or does so as to not get invited to speak at Harding U. (I know, for certain schools it’s a long list of things).
How about this elephantine cocktail for America’s CEO:
Brain of Newt
Tongue of Sir Winston
Eyes of Reagan
Spine of Lady Thatcher
[ahem] of 43
Resume of 41
Toss in some Hebrew adjuncts:
Posture of Moses
Wit of Ezekiel
Integrity of Joseph
Heart of Jeremiah
Now that, my friends, is a CEO to vote for.
qb
I wasn’t aware America was a business now. That might explain a few things.
It’s our loss you haven’t been back.
DU
Ah, Mike Cope’s Blog…..
Maybe I missed something (possible — since I don’t stop by here every day), but has anything negative ever been said of a liberal politician on this blog?
I know that Mike would never say anything about it, but I think it’s a travesty when a guy like him can sink his life, prayers, timeand effort into a community then not be invited back for 15 years. Harding is a fine institution but the administration should be ashamed of themselves.
as a graduate of harding…it is quite sad that you have not been formally invited back. who knows…there may be a lectureship in your future. in 2027.
JD
I think my earlier post covered your concern.
I listened to Newt and Dobson this morning talk about this on FOF and thought this out-loud..”I wonder if you could truly prove that one party in DC is more moral than the other?” Doubtful.
Of course, from what I gather from Barna - the divorce rate is higher for Christians than it is for atheists. Maybe we better look into this grace thing a little deeper.
I agree with the oft stated comment here that our commitment to Christ must be greater than our allegiance to a political party. And I do not agree when one political party attempts to promote themselves as more moral or righteous than the other in God’s eyes. But that applies to both sides of the political aisle, conservative and liberal. If it is wrong for a conservative to allow their political beliefs to dictate their position on any spiritual issue, isn’t also wrong for a liberal to do the same? In the case of Clinton, he broke God’s ideal (immorality outside his marriage vows) and the law of our land (perjury under oath in an attempt to deny someone their rights to discovery under our civil laws), not to mention the 9th commandment (giving flase testimony aginst your neighbor). Apparrently, Newt also broke God’s ideal for his marriage (but as far as we know did not break any of our civil laws). How does the fact that Newt did one, but not the others, excuse Clinton of doing all three? Unless we are allowing our political persuasion to shape our thinking, I believe the answer has to be it doesn’t. As a disciple, and an attorney, I am bothered by both of these examples. And that concern is not affected just because of my, or their, political persuasion.
Hub –
I was speaking of the owner of this blog, not the commenters.
And wise instructor of mine once said, “Be liberal in your politics and conservative in your theology.” It has served me well for 26 years.
I abhor what President Clinton did in his unfaithfullness to his vows to wife and country. I would never defend his actions.
Nor would I ever say that because Speaker Gingrich has had one affair (or more likely three affairs) does that excuse President Clinton’s actions.
What jerks my chain is the poilitcal expediency of Speaker Newt’s confession -
At present there is no attractive candidate for religious conservatives. Rudy Giuliani’s positions on abortion and homosexuals makes him impossible for them to support. McCain has softened his abortion stance. Romney has switched his positions through the years - and it should not matter that he is a Mormon - but Southern Baptists and other conservative churches are not going to support him to be President.
So there is this big hole that needs to be filled and look who is waiting in the wings? Speaker Newt! But wait - there are all these rumors about his infidelities and his ethical lapses. How do we get past that? Let’s go on Rev. Dobson’s show and get it out on the table right now.
I am just too cynical to believe that he did this because his conscience could no longer bear the guilt - not 20 months before a Presidential election.
And if it were Richardson, or Obama or Clinton doing this I would say the very same thing.
The only reason Newt didn’t lie under oath is because he was never put under oath. I’m sure he would’ve answered the same way Clinton did - trying to protect his wife from hurt. Was it wrong? Of course it was, but it had absolutely nothing to do with running this country. BTW, he was never impeached - never passed. Speaking of impeachment, if this administration isn’t impeached and tried for war crimes, there’s no justice at all anymore. Do any of you know the background of most of our past presidents?? Very few were “religious” at all — some were even proclaimed atheists.
Belinda,
Yes, Clinton was impeached. Impeachment is a trial. He was not removed from office, but he was impeached. And no, they were not athiests, they were deistists (sp). We have had Unitarians, and others, but no proclaimed athiests. Let us keep this correct, no matter what your feelings regarding the present administration are.
I was about cast a stone at Newt and Bill when suddenly I realized …
Let us publically confess someone else’s sin.
Isn’t that hypocritical?
I thought we were to confess our sin, one to another.
Harding sorely needs men like Mike to breathe some fresh air into her. Somebody made a HUGE mistake when the decision was made not to invite him back to the campus. We are paying for it now, but there’s a mighty wind a comin’….
One could certainly say that President Clinton was “not removed from office.” One might be more correct, though, to state that he was acquitted by the Senate. A person who has been acquitted has been found to be not guilty.
I know how you feel Mike. I spent four years at Harding. And I too have never been invited back to speak! (Failing preaching class might have something to do with that.)
miket - a bit of trivia [and that's what it is, trivia]
President Clinton was charged [impeached], tried in the Senate and found guilty. His sentence could have included removal from office, which was not passed, ergo he remained in office for the rest of his term.
He was then found guilty of perjury to a Grand Jury, was fined heavily and stripped of attorney’s privileges, including the right to speak before the Supreme Court of the United States, for a period of I believe 5 years, but don’t quote me on that last bit.
I know you guys at Harding feel bad, but what about us Freed boys, and that includes people like Landon Saunders, Lynn Anderson, Rubel Shelly, and a ton of others. I think that people would be surprised at the people who once went to Freed-Hardeman. One thing I think that needs to be remembered is that when people make a concience dedision to take a path very different from the position of the school where they attended what should they expect, to be welcomed with open arms?
Kathy,
Clinton was never convicted. See the votes here.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.vote/
He did plea to prevent further prosecution from the whitewater deal. He was disbarred in Arkansas for 5 years and in 2001 he resigned from the Supreme Court Bar.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/9/181815.shtml
Mike,
If you ever make it to Israel, take a tour with Dr. Ray Vander Laan.
Just wake me up when Dr. Dobson tells me who to vote for.
Quoting Andrew:
“I am afraid that most of the candidates are in the category of Newt (the adultery issue). Rudy is in that category.”
Oh, no. Not most of them. After all, there’s Obama, Edwards, Hilary, Dodd…. and Gore and Clark if they decide to run.
So don’t fret over a lack of choices!
What Newt has done is the same thing as what was once called “kissing the Ring”.
I truly hope he is repentant in his heart, but I will never vote for any man who leaves his wife in the hospital, on chemotherapy for a younger model. That striking lack of character forever put Newt outside my political pale. Certainly he can be forgiven, but I could never trust him in an authoritative position.
The second affair during the Clinton impeachment merely confirms the character he showed before. Technical hypocrisy? Maybe not. Vote for him? Never… no matter what Dr. Dobson says.
Lord have mercy on us all.
Trying to clear up some recent history, from Wikipedia:
Contrary to a popular public misconception, Clinton was successfully impeached (that is, the House did successfully send him to be tried by the Senate). He was not, however, successfully convicted of any of the charges (which is why he was not removed from office), nor was he given any penalty (beyond the censure of the House of Representatives).
The perjury allegations provoked the Arkansas Supreme Court to suspend Clinton’s law license in April 2000. Clinton agreed to the 5-year suspension and to pay a $25,000 fine on January 19, 2001. The following October, the U.S. Supreme Court once again suspended Clinton’s law license and gave him 40 days to convince them that he should not be disbarred permanently. Clinton surrendered his law license in response to these actions.
I’m sure this is going to bring down a rain of flak, but just have to say it.
I’m not looking for a spiritual director in the White House, rather a Commander-in-Chief, a person of vision for where this country should go, a diplomat, but not wishy-washy, a person that has a full grasp the problems we are facing and will face, with a grasp of what should and can be done to settle them.
Naturally, I would prefer s/he be a combination of our first three presidents with a dash of the 16th, but doubt any of the candidates out there today fill that slot very well. Of course I’d prefer s/he have a day-to-day relationship with God and seek the counsel of God when it comes to our affairs of state. Unfortunately, a couple of former presidents have given that expression [affairs of state] a whole new meaning.
In my case at least, it’s far too early to either embrace or discard any of the candidates that have announced candidacy so far.
Richard,
I think we need to re-think what a Christian university should look like if we cannot welcome a conversation with those who have various views on many different issues. Isn’t a University a place where various views can be shared in mutual respect? Why does Freed and other so-called universities seek to repress many legitimate views on issues facing our brotherhood? Is there no room for dialogue?
Mike, one time I “dumped” on you b/c I felt I was of being overlooked for some speaking opportunities at ladies’ workshops…I am highly qualified, and my lessons were always well received. You calmly said, “Maybe it is someone else’s turn…and you have another type ministry.”
You’ve certainly not been overlooked for speaking engagements…you’ve had more than you could handle through the years, so if Harding chooses to invite other people, think back to what you told me. Maybe it is someone else’s turn!
Also, you were on the schedule as the Sunday night speaker for UpLift in 1992…I don’t know if you kept that appointment or not…but you were on the printed schedule!
Joel,
I agree with you, but just know the current realities.
Living in a fishbowl is not easy — for politicians or preachers.
I might point out again the Ann Coulter situation. Whether the school intends it or not, having someone speak is often construed to be an endorsement of that which they are known for. I don’t expect everyone to endorse the progressive ideas held by Mike or Ann Coulter. We all do what we can to shape the conversations around us. We just can’t expect others to listen or endorse us.
I for one, think it would be great to have a public forum where churches can talk openly about the issues they face without anyone having to conform. I used to think these schools were the best place for that. Now I don’t but it’s not because they’re wrong. Harding is much more visible than most local churches. They answer to a broader group of people. And besides that, I don’t think progress is their mission. They must remain focused on providing quality education in a way that glorifies God. These discussions may be better left to local churches and/or regions or forums like these.
Probably the people who are for Mike speaking at Harding were the ones who protested Ann Coulter. How fair is that?
beth,
Way to get revenge! Sorry you had your feelings hurt by Mike, but I doubt that he meant that the way you took it. Let’s not overlook the simple truth. Harding does not invite specific people that Burks puts on his blacklist including Mike and Jeff Walling.
Harding is going to have to make some changes to be viable in the future. ACU has done an amazing job!! Go Royce Money!
KM…Mike did not hurt my feelings…he brought me back to reality. I had talked to him b/c I felt those who had a “sensational” story were being used almost exclusively and that some of the workshops/ ladies’ retreats had become “fluff”. Sorry you took my comment the wrong way…I was just reminding him of what he once said, not getting revenge.
ACU has done an amazing job going liberal, and Harding is doing very well thank you!
Kyle,
I view the Ann Coulter situation a bit differently. Ann doesn’t just hold some controversial views. I have no objection to various views being presented whether they are conservative or liberal. I DO object to name calling and other baiting tactics. Ann Coulter and Bill Mahr engage in much of the same behavior. It may help the TV ratings but I don’t think we should welcome or endorse a Jerry Springer type of discourse on our college campuses.
One thing that I think we’ve forgotten in our churches and society in general is how to disagree yet remain civil.
-J
Chris,
What is your definition of “liberal?”
OH NO!
Not this one!!!!
Wow. How very sad that many here cannot see the difference between breaking the law and being immoral.
Morally corrupt: Clinton and Newt
Lying under oath: Clinton
Obstructing justice: Clinton
The same? Not hardly. What I am also wondering is how many of you same people are defending Libby? He is found guilty of the same things Clinton was yet he is going to jail and Clinton is not.