As my readers probably know I occasionally drift into the realm of civil politics when something happens that really hits my Reformed theology button, usually when it has to do with Total Depravity.  Well as you are probably aware U.S. Senator John Ensign admitted this week to an inappropriate sexual relationship.  On the one hand it is easy to attach the label of hypocrite to him after he has previously condemned the inappropriate sexual activities of President Clinton and the alleged sexual improprieties of U.S. Senator Larry Craig.  This label is further boosted by his activities with the Promise Keepers para-church organization.

I have not followed this particular story very closely, I have had better things to do with my time this week.  I mostly know what I found in the headlines as I really don’t care who he was fooling around with when.  It is generally enough to know that once again a politician has confirmed the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity.  That is old news.  But after reading the piece on GetReligion I thought I would riff on a couple of their points.

First, one of the major criticisms of the Promise Keepers movement from the Reformed angle is that their theological approach does not take into account the doctrine of Total Depravity.  Some see their teaching as “repent and now be good by keeping these seven promises.”  That may be a major simplification of their message but as the GetReligion piece points out and I have seen myself there is an emphasis on confession and repentance in Promise Keepers.  Concern comes when men have trouble keeping the promises and fell like they have failed.  While the doctrine of Total Depravity does not excuse this it does account for it.  However, Promise Keepers and the Reformed approach to discipline are both based on repentance and restoration.  The news to me in the GetReligion piece was that Sen. Ensign appears to have publicly confessed under the weight of his conscience not under the threat of exposure.  Sure, you can attach political motives to it if you like, but it appears he attached the political consequences himself by resigning his Senate leadership position.

I will leave it at that but the GetReligion piece brings out a lot of good, subtle and positive details to the story and Sen. Ensign’s accountability from the religion perspective that not every news source would include.

On to one of his Senate colleagues and “status.”

In preface it is probably useful for me to point out that one of the reasons this really grated on me is because I am not one to stand on formality.  Yes, I could attach some letters to the end of my name or titles at the beginning but almost never do.  I am grateful when in an appropriate situation someone acknowledges me as “Mr. Moderator” or another title suitable to the setting, which sometimes is “Coach Steve” or “Hey Ref.”  But I have numerous stories about comments people have made when they have discovered my academic credentials and reacted with surprise.  One of my favorite that has happened multiple times is “You have a degree from that school?  You are the most normal person I have met from there.”  I like the cliché “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”  The bottom line is that the title is a means not an end.  (Addendum:  I’m not perfect at this.  Right after posting this whole reflection I went and non-verbally “asserted” my numerical position in an airline boarding queue.)

With that background I turn to the junior U.S. Senator from my state, the Honorable Barbara Boxer.  You may have caught this exchange preserved for us on YouTube.  In this clip from a Senate hearing she is questioning Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh.  Gen. Walsh is responding in a very courteous, professional and military tone and addressing her as “ma’am.”  It is not technically correct, and Senator Boxer lets him know by asking him to address her as Senator.  OK, I guess that is her right, that is the title of the office she holds, and that by itself does not really bother me.  What really got me was the Senator’s next sentence: “I worked so hard to get that title.”  She has now moved from the office to the person possessing the office.  (The really funny part is that the General responds with “Yes ma’am.” and then catches himself and starts addressing her as “Senator” the next time around.)

One take is that we have here the “self-made woman,” someone displaying the Protestant work ethic.  Look where I got myself!  It kind of ignores the thousands of people who have worked on campaigns for her.

But on another level we have the religious dimension.  Numerous comments could be made.  As my post title implies there is the “honor to whom honor is due.”  But there is also the it is legal but is it beneficial angle.  The last shall be first and the first shall be last.  They who are least in the Kingdom shall be the greatest.  Glory is not something to be grasp.  But since Senator Boxer self-identifies as being Jewish I will leave you with a passage from the Torah, Deut. 8:12-14:

When you have eaten your fill and have built fine houses and live in them, and when your herds and flocks have multiplied, and your silver and gold is multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied, then do not exalt yourself, forgetting the LORD your G_d, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery,