The sad spectacle of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford continues to dominate the headlines as further revelations add one bizarre twist after another to the governor's tale of adultery, deceit, and the consequences of sin. With every passing day, pressure mounts for the governor to resign. As the revelations unfold, his leadership credibility is further destroyed. The people of South Carolina now look to their governor's mansion with a sense of dread and embarrassment.
Governor Sanford's admission of adultery came only after he was ambushed by the media after returning from a liaison in Argentina. In a rambling confession, the governor admitted to an ongoing relationship and an extramarital affair. While the media quickly turned to ask questions about money and the affairs of state, many others immediately thought of the governor's wife and four sons and the horrible pain and embarrassment they were now forced to bear.
In his original statement, Governor Sanford seemed to acknowledge the evil of his actions and, using biblical language, he appeared to understand the sinfulness of his adultery and betrayal. Yet, his statement was rambling and disconnected and, upon reflection, his words raised more questions than they answered. How did this affair happen? Was the relationship really over?
When Governor Sanford addressed his cabinet just a few days after his confession, he offered an apology to his colleagues and promised to "carry on" as governor. “I wanted generally to apologize to every one of you all, for letting you down,” he said. Of course, "letting you down" hardly covers the behavior that brought the governor to this admission. The governor violated his marital vows, engaged in an elaborate and sickening correspondence with his mistress, abandoned his responsibility as husband and father, and forfeited his right to lead the state which twice had elected him governor.
When speaking to the Cabinet, Governor Sanford referred to the biblical story of King David. The governor spoke of "the way in which he fell mightily -- he fell in very, very significant ways --- but then picked up the pieces and built from there." The governor also suggested that remaining in office would set a good example for his four boys, teaching them to persevere after a fall. The great shame is that the governor did not have his four boys in mind as he committed adultery.
Naturally, questions emerged related to the extent and duration of the extramarital affair. The governor's initial statement was unclear about several key issues. The days following would render the situation even more unclear.
Most recently, in a lengthy interview granted to the Associated Press, Governor Sanford added what the wire service called "explosive details" that made the picture all the more troubling. In the first place, the governor admitted to having "crossed the lines" with other women. "There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines that I shouldn't have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line," said the governor.
But the most troubling words from the governor concerned the nature of his relationship with Maria Belen Chapur, the woman with whom he had the affair. "This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story," he said. He added: "A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day."
Speaking, not of his wife, but of his mistress, Governor Sanford declared that he would go to his grave "knowing that I had met my soul mate."
Immediately following the governor's first admission, it seemed that he might survive politically and remain in office. The nation found itself once again in a debate about the relationship between personal virtue and public responsibility. This is a question that is particularly vexing to Christian conservatives, who must simultaneously understand that all are sinners in need of redemption and, at the same time, affirm that some sins disqualify individuals from public service and influence.
America's recent political history indicates that some politicians can survive revelations of adultery. While Christians should be less concerned about the political consequences and more concerned about the spiritual consequences, it is fair to observe that those politicians who survive more often than not do so when the adulterous relationship is clearly over and in the more distant past and when the politician has given himself in a demonstrable way to the priority of rebuilding his marriage and reestablishing credibility with his family.
Put simply, Governor Sanford's most recent comments point to a worst-case scenario. His words make clear that his heart is still inclined toward his mistress, and not his wife. With tragic candor, the governor has spoken of trying to fall back in love with his wife. He refers to his mistress, not his wife, as his soul mate, and speaks wistfully of the affair as "a love story at the end of the day."
Governor Sanford may cite King David, and he may even suffer the illusion that his response is similar to that of Israel's King. Nevertheless, the difference is clear. David's adultery was mixed even with murder, but his own acknowledgment of sin came in a flood of contrition, remorse, broken heartedness, and humility. David acknowledged the reality of his sin, expressed his hatred of the sin, and became a model for us all of repentance. Governor Sanford, on the other hand, demonstrates the audacity to speak wistfully of his sin, longingly of his lover, and romantically of his descent into unfaithfulness.
Governor Sanford is no King David, and the people of South Carolina -- as well as the watching world -- now observe the sad spectacle of a man who, while admitting to wrongdoing, shows no genuine repentance. As the Christian church has long recognized, true repentance is reflected in the "detestation of sin." This is a far cry from what we've heard from Governor Sanford.
If the governor is really serious about demonstrating character to his four sons, he should resign his office and give himself unreservedly to his wife and family. He must show his sons -- and all who have eyes to see -- how a man is led by the grace and mercy of God to hate his sin, rather than to love it. Until then, the governor must be understood to indulge himself in wistfulness for his affair and in a desperate determination to maintain his office. His remaining days in office are like a Greek tragedy unfolding into farce. The whole picture is just unspeakably sad.
The role of the father is increasingly problematic in the context of modern American culture. Fatherhood has been marginalized and the rule and authority of fathers has been depreciated, ridiculed, and continuously redefined. From the Berenstain Bears to The Simpsons, fathers are all too often the object of ridicule or this subject of the laugh line.
Of course, some fathers bring this marginalization upon themselves as they either neglect or forfeit their own fatherly responsibilities. In many sectors of our society, fathers are most noted by their absence. Indeed, millions of American children are growing up without any significant father figure, much less their biological father.
The marginalization of fatherhood can be traced to many developments, but one prime source of this marginalization is the intellectual class and its radical commitment to ideological feminism. Fatherhood is now an ideological category that is inescapably linked to everything from patriarchy (considered to be the original sin) to popular culture (where the intellectual elites exert a very significant, if indirect influence).
Fatherhood has been marginalized in the society at large, and even the biological contribution of a father can now be replaced by a mere "donor" from a sperm bank or a fertility clinic.
Given the marginalization of fatherhood and the confusion about the role of fathers, Father's Day becomes more and more awkward. Nevertheless it still comes on the calendar and journalists, intellectuals, and cultural observers feel the need to say something about fatherhood in June.
W. Bradford Wilcox, professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, warns that much of what is said about fatherhood in connection with Father's Day is nothing less than mythological --- and many of these myths are downright dangerous.
Writing in National Review magazine, Wilcox identifies five myths about fatherhood that are likely to rear their heads in connection with Father's Day. Anticipating a flow of news reports around Father's Day, Wilcox warns: "Some will do a good job of capturing the changes and continuities associated with fatherhood in contemporary America. But other reporters and writers will generalize from their own unrepresentative networks of friends and family members, try to baptize the latest family trend, or assume that our society is heading ceaselessly in a progressive direction." In other words, "be on the lookout."
Beyond this general warning, Wilcox offers some specific myths that are all too likely to appear. First, he warns about the "Mr. Mom surge" that has recently appeared in the media. While the current economic dislocation has had a disproportionate effect upon men, and thus upon fathers, stay-at-home dad's "make up a minuscule share of American fathers." According to the most recent U.S. Census data, stay-at-home dads represent less than 1% of the 22.5 million families in America. Stay-at-home moms, on the other hand, represent 24% of all families.
Brad Wilcox reminds us that most American families still know dad as the primary breadwinner. Indeed, the father is the primary earner in almost 3/4 of American families. Wilcox is right in suggesting that the media focus on the "exotic breed" of the stay-at-home dad obscures the fact that providership is essential to the role of most fathers in most families. This should be honored and respected, not lost in a fog of media attention that distracts from the fundamental reality.
The second myth Wilcox dispels is the claim that most women want a 50-50 distribution between work and family life for fathers. He concedes this might be true for "the average journalist or academic" but not for the average American mom. While moms do want dads to be more involved with the hands-on tasks of parenting and with housework, "most women who are married with children are happy to have their husbands take the lead when it comes to providing and do not wish to work full-time."
Third, Wilcox cites ample research to dispel the myth that cohabitation is as good as marriage. Today, a significant minority of American children will spend some time with cohabiting parents. As Wilcox concedes, this leads many intellectuals to attempt to minimize the differences between married and cohabiting fathers. But, cohabiting fathers are much less likely to stay around and stay significant in the lives of their children. Marriage and fatherhood turn out to be "a package deal" for most men.
Fourth, Wilcox goes after the claim that divorce has not been harmful to children. Besides research indicating that girls whose parents divorce are far more likely to drop out of high school, to become pregnant as teenagers, and to suffer depression. "Girls whose parents divorce are also much more likely to divorce later in life."
We should add that boys, often neglected in so many these studies, experience the loss of father and suffer this loss, often in silence. The pathology often evident in the lives of young males can often be traced directly to this loss.
Last, Wilcox dispels the myth that "dads are dispensable." The phenomenon of single mothers by choice receives a great deal of positive press. Nevertheless, as Wilcox asserts: "this myth fails to take into account the now-vast social scientific literature . . . showing that children typically do better in an intact, married family with their fathers than they do in families headed by single mothers."
Brad Wilcox ends his essay with a call for more journalists "to confront hard truths about the roles that fathers and marriage play in advancing the welfare of our nation's most vulnerable citizens, our children."
Christians have a special stake in this argument, for we believe that fatherhood is not just a social construction but a matter of biblical importance. Though informed by sociological analysis and encouraged by academics like Bradford Wilcox, our confidence in the role of fathers is based in the fact that fatherhood is a role that is honored, dignified, and defined in Holy Scripture. The Christian father is answerable to a far higher calling, but the data surveyed in Brad Wilcox's essay serve as a reminder that fatherhood is a gift to all creation and that the evidence of the Creator's design for fatherhood defies all the ideological efforts of so many to subvert fathers and fatherhood.
Thanks go to Brad Wilcox for dispelling these myths. As Father's Day now approaches, let us all tell the truth about fatherhood and honor God as we honor faithful fathers.
Original publication date: June 19, 2009