What Does God Have to Do With Governor Sanford’s Affair?

Senator John Ensign of Nevada, Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana are all professed Christian conservatives. Yet Ensign and Sanford recently admitted having extra-marital affairs and Vitter admitted visiting a prostitute. Senator Larry Craig, a religious conservative from Idaho, denied trying to have sex with a man in a bathroom stall but the evidence suggests otherwise. Despite claiming to be deeply religious, reality show stars Jon and Kate are getting a divorce and Jon reportedly had an affair with a third grade teacher. A USA Today column asks if Christian conservatives were seduced by the two, who “appeared flagrantly Christian: wearing Scripture-slogan shirts; speaking at churches, citing their faith for their refusal to pursue embryo-reduction for a safer, smaller pregnancy.”

Conservatives do not have a monopoly on extra-marital affairs, of course. The current and former governors of New York and John Edwards are examples of Democrats engaging in similar behavior. A reasonable assumption is that the rate at which people deal with their sexuality in destructive ways is the same for liberals and conservatives. Still, there seems to be something particularly hypocritical, or least paradoxical, when conservatives violate so blatantly the rules of conduct they have trumpeted so loudly. But, is there any inconsistency between these kinds of affairs and religious values? Does God have anything to do with Governor Sanford’s affair?

According to Sanford it does: He said at his press conference admitting the affair: “I am here because if you were to look at God’s laws, they are in every instance designed to protect people from themselves. It’s not a moral, rigid list of do’s and don’ts, just for the heck of do’s and don’ts. It is, indeed, to protect us from ourselves.” The idea seems to be that humans are weak and that there are certain kinds of conduct – unfortunately, they often are very pleasurable – that are self-destructive. God does not want us to engage in these kinds of conduct because they are bad for us. The image is that God is a parent and we are children. If we only learn the rules and comply with them, we will not get ourselves in trouble.

There are two problems with this formulation. The first problem is the idea of the rule book itself. It is not obvious what conduct is against the rules and, as practical matter, it is often a zealous majority, not God, who comes up with rules of conduct. That in turn can lead to laws that regulate our private lives, from what we read to what we do in bed with a consenting adult partner. The second problem with Sanford’s formulation is that it suggests the most important consideration is one’s own welfare, or in his words, “[protecting] people from themselves.” That is fundamentally different from what Jesus taught, of course. Recall Jesus’ famous answer to the rabbis who tried to trap him by asking him to identify the most important commandment. Jesus responded with two laws, not one: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. That is a remarkably modern and insightful formulation that has nothing to do with dietary laws or rituals or particular rules about sexuality. It puts others first, not ourselves.

In The Uncertain Believer, I argue that those two “laws” are really different ways of saying the same thing. Once modern humans begin to think of God as the central unifying idea of unqualified compassion for others rather than the powerful being imagined by our pre-scientific answers, it makes no sense to talk about “God’s laws.” God has no “law” against adultery or even against having sex with someone in a bathroom stall. However, loving God in the sense of committing ourselves to the idea of compassion for others means that there is a “law” – or at least a principle – that we should not inflict pain on our families through selfish and irresponsible behavior.

It is certainly possible to have sympathy for Governor Sanford as an ordinary, flawed human being after listening to his rambling press conference. Feeling a powerful urge to have sex outside of marriage is common and millions have acted on that urge in foolish and destructive ways. But Sanford did not violate one of God’s laws by failing to protect himself. In my view, he failed to love God by failing to be compassionate with his family. Jesus would have said that he violated one of the two great laws for living. A modern view would be that these two laws merge into one unifying idea that we should always be compassionate and loving toward others. That very simple but very powerful idea gives us a framework for living. However one chooses to formulate it, the important point is that we see there is a relationship between God and our sexuality, just as there is between God and the rest our lives. If God is important to us, we commit ourselves to the principle of compassion for others, starting with our families.