Rod Dreher

EPA: Fracking likely poisoned groundwater

For Newt, once is not enough

By Rod Dreher • December 9, 2011, 6:45 PM

The conservative Catholic scholar Frank Beckwith credits Newt Gingrich for changing his life for the better a couple of decades ago. And he recognizes that Gingrich has had a Catholic religious conversion, which by definition includes confession and remission of sins. But Beckwith cannot support Gingrich’s bid for the White House:

This is not to diminish or call into question Gingrich’s conversion. Quite the opposite. For, as the Catholic Catechism teaches, absolution of sins does not eradicate all the effects and consequences of those sins on the shaping of one’s character. This requires ongoing conversion, including detaching oneself from those things that may provide an occasion for sin.

It seems to me that a man whose sins arose as a consequence of the pursuit of political power and the unwise use of it after he became Speaker of the House should not be seeking the most powerful office in the world.

This is plain common sense. Why is is to uncommon among so many of us conservatives on the Newt question?

One part (but not the whole!) of the answer: it might well have to do with a theological difference. The Catholic (and Orthodox) viewpoint is that when one is forgiven sacramentally, that only opens the door to grace. One still has to repent, and keep at it — including going to confession, and sincerely exerting oneself in repentance. On this way of thinking, given what we know of his public character, to give Gingrich power again would be something like hiring a reformed alcoholic to run Seagram’s. The temptations would be simply too great.

Perhaps it’s easier for Evangelicals and Pentecostals to believe that a sincere confession of one’s sin, and an expression of repentance, is more effective in removing the tendency toward sin than Catholics and Orthodox believe it is? I don’t know about this. Evangelicals, what do you think? Help me out here.

18 Responses to For Newt, once is not enough

John Haas says:

December 9, 2011 at 7:02 pm

Yeah, there’s something to that. When I was doing the Navigators Bible-memorization program, the first one you memorized was II Cor. 5:17: “If any man is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things have passed away, behold, new things have come!”

But while that’s their theological platform, they’re not complete idiots, and recognize that there are besetting sins. In a lot of cases, they’ll give you the benefit of the doubt right after your conversion, hoping you’re utterly transformed, but if you stumble, you’re on probation on whatever sin that is.

In addition: my sense is that most evangelicals would agree if they heard you explain the Gingrich thing that way, but few are listening or thinking much about it. Evangelicals have long been apolitical, and just aren’t very savvy or thoughtful about politics.

Not to overstate it, but they function almost entirely on emotion when it comes to politics. It’s quite easy to lead them where you want them to go: mesmerize them with the vision of some kind of malevolent conspiracy, remind them this is their country after all, then parade a supposedly godly leader-to-be in front of them who can make the right noises, and they’re yours. At least for awhile.
tbraton says:

December 9, 2011 at 7:13 pm

From the point of view of a very sincere non-believer, I think that, if you believe that Gingrich has ever sincerely believed in any of the three religions to which he has subscribed during his lifetime, you are truly the one that everbody wants at the poker table. I even have some land here in Florida that I want to sell you. Gingrich was no more faithful to any of his three religions than he was to one of his three wives. Sorry, Calista, but there is a reason why he buys you so much jewelry. George Burns bought Gracie Allen a piece of jewelry every time he cheated on her.
Josh says:

December 9, 2011 at 7:16 pm

Yeah, well, no. I’m an Evangelical pastor, and no Evangelicals that I’ve heard or with whom I’ve talked suggest that sincere confession and repentance does anything about our tendency toward sin. Evangelicals tend to be very aware of human sinfulness and very wary of human ability to overcome sin (some Pentecostals and the Holiness movement notwithstanding).

I would argue that this “forgiveness” of Newt has to do with some poor teaching – “forgive and forget” – and some lay resistance to good, theologically grounded teaching (just like Catholics and contraception, as an example). Among pastors that I’ve talked with, we can’t believe that Evangelicals would support this guy for president. If I were his pastor, I would be firm in counseling him to avoid the spotlight and concentrate on dealing with his sinful tendency toward self-aggrandizement.
Chris says:

December 9, 2011 at 8:13 pm

For me as an Orthodox christian, repentance is work. Confession, participation in the mysteries and engaging in an honest review of my conscience is tough. Not to mention the fasting. My evangelical friends keep thinking its works righteousness but its really me working my salvation rather than working to achieve salvation. So many evangelicals just don’t get that about those of us in the Orthodox church. I suspect that Gingrich will get more of a free pass from our evangelical brothers and sisters because of this.
Edward Hamilton says:

December 9, 2011 at 8:17 pm

Admittedly there are a variety of perspectives on the doctrine of sanctification, and a Southern Baptist might answer this differently from a Calvinist or a Lutheran. But I was always under the impression that the on-balance Protestant perspective tended toward the other extreme. That is, Protestants tend to perceive confession of sins as more of a juridical act whereby you receive only forgiveness for those particular sins, and have limited optimism that it actually conveys the power to resist future sins.

I think of Catholics as believing that confession has the ability to actually communicate a blessing – “grace” as capability, rather than as standing – to resist future sins. That’s consistent with the Catholic view that all sacraments are a means of obtaining grace, so that the act of being baptized, or confirmed/chrismated, etc. would really result in an inward realignment.

It is true, however, that evangelicals tend to place enormous importance on the value of the initial conversion experience.That is, it’s normal to regard someone “turning to Jesus” as a basis for expecting a radical change in behavior, particularly for the Arminian end of Protestantism. I don’t see exactly how this applies to Newt Gingrich, though, since his conversion to Catholicism wouldn’t be regarded favorably as a “conversion” by the sectors of Protestantism that think like this.

Just to use your own example, though, I’m a quite sure that a Southern Baptist would be far less tolerant of letting a drunk get anywhere near a bottle of alcohol than a Catholic would. That’s the whole basis for Baptists being dry to begin with, the mortal fear that the human psyche is so totally unable to resist temptation that it needs to be fled whenever possible. (See related bans on dancing, secular music, etc.)

I don’t think you’ve discovered a formal theological difference. I think you’ve uncovered an example of people behaving irrationally or hypocritically.
Sam M says:

December 9, 2011 at 8:33 pm

Isn’t it possible that they don’t care if he sins, as long as he runs the country well?

Let’s say I live in the town with the Seagram’s distillery. Iwork there and so do all of my friends and family. Would I care if they hired an alcoholic to run the distillery? Not if I thought he would do the best job. Sure, he might sin. He might be a jerk to his wife. He might drinkhimself into an early grave. But if I honestly think the other CEO andidate will break the place, I probably root for the booser.

Now, I happen to believe Newt would be a bad president. But I don’t see how his degree of repentance, or the facct that power might make him sin again, should impact my view of his candidacy.
Mike says:

December 9, 2011 at 9:10 pm

As an Evangelical, I would concur with Dr. Beckwith. I can believe that former Speaker Gingrich has had a sincere conversion to Christ, and that he is forgiven. But at the same time, it is unwise to return to the circumstances that his sinful tendencies took suck advantages of and inflicted such spiritual damage. As Paul admonishes us in 1 Corinthians 6:12, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” If there’s too much temptation, avoid it! Sin seeks to cast its spells on all of us in ways that are most appealing to us. When we recognize that something enslaves us to something other than devotion to the Lord, we must habituate ourselves to avoid it at all costs.

Yes, God used the circumstances surrounding Newt’s earlier fall from power to bring him to Christ, but just because God can use less than ideal circumstances, conditions, and creatures for some greater good that furthers His plan doesn’t mean we should take undue risk to become evil for Him to work. If God couldn’t use imperfect means to accomplish His pal, He wouldn’t get much done, would He? As Paul again writes in Romans 6:1, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” The answer is obvious.
BobN says:

December 10, 2011 at 12:50 am

Why is everyone talking about Newt having sinned and received forgiveness in the past tense? In what Catholic universe is his living with his current wife not an on-going sin?
Colin Vollebergh says:

December 10, 2011 at 8:06 am

I have a hard time with this question. I think Chris said it well, the differences in Catholic or Orthodox theology are not all that different from those in Evangelicalism, when it comes to sin and repentance. But I doubt most voters, of either faith, are concerned with such questions. For the most part, we’re talking about people (evangelicals in particular) who will vote for whomever has the (R) beside their name. So why Gingrich? He’s in the right party, and has a name people recognize.
Connie says:

December 10, 2011 at 11:33 am

Isn’t it possible that they don’t care if he sins, as long as he runs the country well?

It is likely that they don’t care if he sins, as long as he defeats Obama.

And I would like a Catholic answer to Bob’s question. My understanding was that he could be forgiven for his sexual sins, his ego/manipulation sins, AND have his first two marriages annulled. But under what Catholic logic rules is it OK to have a sacramental marriage with your paramour?
NorthtoSouth says:

December 10, 2011 at 11:50 am

The fact that you are even debating whether Gingrich has changed his ways due to some religious “conversion” shows you to be easy marks. That’s the beauty of wearing religion on your sleeve. You make the right noises, and a whole group of people will back you as one of them and trust you over their better instincts. It has nothing to do with a particular theology. It’s con-man 101.
Surly says:

December 10, 2011 at 12:08 pm

BobN–I believe that Gingrich was able to have his prior marriages annulled and was free to marry in the Roman church. I remember reading about it at the time–it took awhile but Henry VIII notwithstanding, Rome can be quite flexible when the rich and powerful want a do-over.
VikingLS says:

December 10, 2011 at 12:39 pm

I think it’s basically more that they don’t like what’s being presented as alternatives. Romney’s a Mormon, a religion they think of not only as non-Christian but as a deeply dangerous cult.

Obama is a socialist, which is really a communist, communists persecute Christians, therefore Obama is anti-Christian. Even for the one’s not into this thinking Obama’s pro-choice, so no matter what he’s unacceptable.
JonF says:

December 10, 2011 at 3:59 pm

Re: But under what Catholic logic rules is it OK to have a sacramental marriage with your paramour?

As someone noted Henry VIII was an exception (due to an unusual political blind the Pope was in). But a heck of a lot of European royal and nobles married their paramours with the blessings of the Church after they managed to get the old wife packed off to a nunnery or exiled to distance castle.
Surly says:

December 10, 2011 at 8:15 pm

Yeah, it seems that if you were honestly and fully repenting the sin of adultery, part of your penance would be breaking things off with the paramour.

That being said, I do like the Catholic scholar that Rod found who was more upset about Newt’s abuses of power, corruption and self-aggrandizement than he was about his serial adultery. It shows a proper perspective. And I suspect that the enormous self-regard Newt has was a big driver of his affairs.
sdb says:

December 10, 2011 at 9:03 pm

Is it clear that evangelical conservatives are more pro-Gingrich than Catholic conservatives?
John Haas says:

December 11, 2011 at 12:00 am

You know, watching him tonite, this all just seemed unreal. Who, at this stage of his life, can really think he’s going to go off on another philandering binge? The guy’s a virtual planet up there. Is there enough Viagra in the country to sustain him? He just doesn’t look like much of a Lothario. The evangelicals will be happy to say, “Hey, new creation!” The Catholics–who see repentance as more of a long process, and would be skeptical usually–will be too happy he’s a Catholic.
Red Emma says:

December 12, 2011 at 11:29 am

While I would cross the street to avoid shaking hands with the Newt, I think it’s going too far to say that he is unique in having fallen into sin in the pursuit of political power. In fact, politics is a moral minefield. Most of us would have to be out-and-out saints to avoid committing at least five of the Seven Deadlies before supper while pursuing a political career.