My congressman, John Sullivan, just got back from rehab for alcohol addiction at Betty Ford. In his announcement he asked for support and prayers, and my initial reaction was to do just that. However, as his time at Betty Ford started to close, I had quite a different reaction. A few days before his treatment was complete, he missed the debate and vote on Cap and Trade. I was rather upset that he was not there for that. It turned out that it did not matter because the margin of victory was such that one vote didn’t matter.
Nevertheless, I could not quite shake my feeling of anger. I read Michael Bates’ column on Batesline hoping that he could show me why I'm being unfair, but it didn't help.
There are some things Sullivan has done that I disagree with, but the vast majority of them, in the grand scheme of things, have been of no real consequence, so I don’t hold it against him. The truth is, as Bates pointed out, he is a good conservative who tows the line on conservative fundamentals, which I can appreciate.
Bates stated that, “It would be wrong to push John Sullivan out the door because he sought rehabilitation for alcoholism.” I agree with that in principle. I am floored that he pushed himself to rehab without being forced to go. He did it because it was the right thing to do, for himself, and for his family. It seems hard to be angry with someone for doing the right thing.
I think what continues to gnaw at me, isn't so much that he wasn’t there for the Cap and Trade bill, It's that he put the first district in a position of not having a representative for 30 days in the first place. I cannot fault him for doing the right thing. However, eventually doing the right thing doesn’t make up for starting off on the wrong foot to begin with.
Perhaps it is unfair to hold a public official to high biblical standards, but this whole situation has got me thinking about my political pragmatism. Should I support someone who falls short of my standards merely because it is good for the party, or because I don't like the other guy, or because I feel like I need to be pragmatic?
No! Unfair or not, these are the standards that people seeking political office should be held to, for a whole host of reasons. I understand that the verses I am going to share are talking about people in positions of leadership in the church, but the Bible was written during a time of totalitarian dictatorship. People did not get to choose their political leaders. These are good principals, therefore, I am going to view all candidates through the lens of 1 Timothy 3:1-10. (with a few changes of my own to make it relevant to politics...again understanding that this verse it talking about church leadership)
1 …Whoever aspires to be anBased on these standards, perhaps Sullivan should not have been representing us in the first place. Perhaps most, of the folks in politics shouldn’t be representing us. Nevertheless, this leads me to my point. When we start ignoring our principals and start standing on the shifting sands of pragmatism and party first, we will end up with the representation we deserve.overseerelected official desires a noble task.
2 Now theoverseerelected official is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect.
5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care ofGod's churchhis constituents?)
6 He must not bea recent convertnew to politics, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as thedevilopposition.
7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgraceand into the devil's trap.
8 In the same way,deaconspolitical candidates are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain.
9 They must keep hold of the deep truths ofthe faithconservatism with a clear conscience.
10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve asdeaconselected officials.
I am not sure whether or not I'll continue to support Sullivan after this. I need to think and pray about it. He has done a courageous thing, and I applauded him for it, but I do not think he is entitled to a free pass.
7 comments:
no free pass
Was Gov. Sanford any more sinfull than Sullivan? A sin is a sin is a sin. We won't hear the facts about what the alcohol did to him as the head of his household like we have of Sanford. Sanford ended his also but there wasn't a clinic for that one.
I realize in a way some of this is like comparing apples to oranges with us humans but is it in the eyes of God?
no free pass for either...electeds must have a high standard to protect the interests of those they SERVE
In practical terms, I rather doubt it matters very much what I think. The reality is that Mr. Sullivan is going to face a re-election campaign very shortly, he is almost certain to draw primary opposition, and it is almost certain that his opponents in the primary (and in the general election, should he make it that far) are going to paint him as a career-long drunk.
The real question is: Is John Sullivan such an outstanding representative that he will be able to win under those circumstances? I'm thinkin' NOT. Were I a gambling man,I'd give you two-to-one that he doesn't make it past the primary.
As someone whose life was completely wrecked by an addicted spouse, I can certainly relate to this. To this day, I have a hard time with this kind of thing. Mayby he'll make a good businessman.
Sullivan should be commended for "dealing with his issues," that makes him a better man than most. That being said, he should not run again, perhaps in a term or two, when his children are grown he could run again with the reassurance that he is older, wiser and more under control. Most everyone is willing to give him a second chance but he needs to step away for a while and take care of himself and his family. Representing us in Congress is a huge responsibility and honor, that should only be bestowed on citizens of the highest character.
Do the MEN who replied to this hold themselves to these standards as the family leader or do they let their "errors" squeak by? Have they stepped down from their position (husband/father higher than a politician) as husband and father?
To quote a fellow you may know, "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother."
Sounds like this "brother" was confronted and was gained back.
Any questions? I mean about your life, that is?
Post a Comment