THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, November 6, 1994 TAG: 9411040068
SECTION: DAILY BREAK PAGE: E1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARC FISHER, THE WASHINGTON POST
LENGTH: Long : 141 lines
IT'S TIME FOR ``Clergy Clash!'' - where men of the cloth name the righteous and highlight the heathens. This week, our panel of ministers is in Virginia for the Encounter of the Infidels, the showdown between Oliver North and Charles Robb, sinners both.
Rev. Robert Drinan, Catholic priest, former Democratic congressman, who's the supreme sinner in this set?
``In my book, it's quite clear. Adultery is a sin against another person, but it is not a violation of public trust. Lying to Congress is a sin of public corruption, a public sin. That just weighs greater. Private peccadilloes don't really undermine the public morality.''
Thank you, Father. Now let's turn to the Rev. Charles Nestor, minister of the Manassas Assembly of God church. Pastor, who is the sinner supreme?
``Scripture tells us a king needs to have a personal moral code. There has been in public life the promotion of the idea that it's possible to separate public morality from private morality, and that's not so. The oath of office is a covenant with the public. Marriage vows are a covenant taken in view of family, friends and spouse. You're not electing just a public person, but the whole person.''
Thank you, Pastor.
At this writing, John McLaughlin has yet to announce the transformation of his weekend gabfest into ``Battle of the Network Theologians.'' But this year's Virginia senatorial race has drawn ministers and religious scholars deep into the political fray, and while some welcome the chance to inject questions of faith into public dialogue, many reject the notion that sins can be graded or ranked.
``There's no catalog of human infractions,'' says Oliver North's minister, the Rev. David Harper of the Church of the Apostles in Fairfax. Harper, an Episcopalian, feels no need to preach to his congregation about how to weigh public transgressions against private misdeeds, the issue that has pushed policy issues to the fringes of the Robb-North debate.
``Both these men have dark moments in their lives,'' Harper says. ``Neither is a squeaky-clean person who can claim moral rectitude.'' The minister says no one in his congregation - which he says is divided between North and Robb supporters - has approached him to seek counsel on the campaign's moral questions.
``It's a very personal thing,'' Harper says. ``People make their own evaluations about lying to Congress versus adultery. Some see Oliver North as a very devout and committed Christian, accountable to God in his life. Others wouldn't see that. The question is, how much moral rectitude do we really expect from politicians?''
Let's go to the Scriptures:
``And it came to pass upon an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. And David sent and enquired after the woman. . . . And David sent messengers and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her. . . .''
II Samuel 11:2-3
King David, a righteous king, was no Boy Scout. If Charles Robb's extramarital activities - and allegations that he partied with drug dealers and young women in Virginia Beach when he was governor - are displeasing to the Lord, should Robb be judged solely by his acts in office, or by his private life as well?
Wrong question, says the Rev. David Scott, a Christian ethicist at Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria. ``King David is a person whose private life includes really egregious moral behavior,'' he says. ``But King David stands as one of the great kings of Israel. A division is made: The sinfulness of his private life does not bar him from serving God.''
Still, Scott warns that ``there's nothing explicit in Scripture'' about distinguishing between public and private competence. That is a modern notion. In biblical times, the concept of privacy as it's understood today did not exist.
Some theologians do find biblical guidance on the Robb question. ``Judge not,'' says the Rev. Alan Geyer, a minister in the United Methodist Church who teaches at Washington's Wesley Theological Seminary. ``FDR, Martin King, John Kennedy - some of our major figures who have been great achievers of justice and peace nevertheless have had difficulty in their personal, private lives. Remember Jesus's willingness to embrace even a woman taken in adultery. The lesson is: Don't pretend to be God in judging the moral character of a candidate. Some of our great biblical heroes would be in big trouble in today's politics.'' THE BIBLICAL STANDARD
The plain fact is, if we cast votes as the Bible instructs us to choose kings, neither of these guys would have a prayer. In Chapter 17 of Deuteronomy, the Lord's standards for political office are spelled out, and the rules forbid both unfaithfulness and lawbreaking.
This stuff truly matters, says Nestor, the Manassas minister. ``I believe God cares who holds public office. After a generation of widespread belief in relativism, we are finally realizing the problem with this ends-justifies-the-means thinking. We are commanded to appoint a king that the Lord chooses.''
And if the Lord says a leader of men must follow the law, then what are we to make of North and his three felony convictions (later overturned on a technicality)?
In the Book of Joshua, the harlot Rahab disobeys the king of Jericho's order to produce the two spies hiding in her house. For her disobedience, Rahab is not punished, but is rewarded by Joshua, who spares her from the flames that consume Jericho.
``I talk to a lot of conservative clergy who are repulsed by Oliver North,'' says Michael Cromartie at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington. ``But then you hear, Ollie may have lied, but he did it for a right reason. Of course, a lot of these same people are also repulsed by Chuck Robb, because they see him as someone who won't even admit what he did.''
Rabbi Jack Spiro of the reform Temple Beth Ahabah in Richmond says, ``Americans like virtuous people, and because of their visibility, we do look to politicians for virtue. When their behavior is immoral, it troubles us.
``But public officials haven't sworn their allegiance to the Ten Commandments. Their oath is to defend the Constitution and another ten commandments, the Bill of Rights.''
Clergy and theologians are as colored by their politics as lay people are. Starting with their own political philosophies, many clergy then riffle through the Good Book to find Scripture to back up their positions.
``That's human nature,'' Spiro says. ``You approve of someone if you like his views. I'm offended by the abusive cartoons of Clinton, but I didn't find it so bad when Nixon was the target.''
Few churches offer outright endorsements of candidates, but priests and ministers often make their choices perfectly transparent.
``Denominations just aren't helpful distinctions in this,'' says Bill Golderer, a Presbyterian theologian who works for the Interfaith Alliance, a group of anti-fundamentalist clergy. ``There are literalist, party-line people - Unitarian Universalists on the left, the far-right fundamentalists on the right - who say personal behavior tells you precisely how someone will govern.'' But most denominations are split between those who believe personal character is a guide to political performance, and those who don't. Most clergy prefer to pass questions of comparative sin back to their flock.
Weighing human acts is tough in every field. Theologians themselves are divided these days over the works and life of Paul Tillich, whose contributions to the field have been tainted by revelations about his own extramarital affairs.
It's a dilemma known to every American. It's the Sinatra quandary: great singer, nasty man. Do you buy the records? Scripture doesn't say much on that one, either. ILLUSTRATION: Color photos
KEYWORDS: U.S. SENATE RACE VIRGINIA CANDIDATES SIN by CNB