The Kingdom Movement

A Literary & Pastoral Study Guide to the Gospel of Matthew

The Inspiration of Matthew,

by Caravaggio

On the King's Errand

Devotional Reflections on Matthew's Gospel

Growing Through Losing - A Word to Herod, Newt Gingrich, and Maybe You:  Mt.14:4

^14:4 For John had been saying to him, ‘It is not lawful for you to have her.’

The last two marriages of politician Newt Gingrich show personal failure and also widespread hypocrisy among evangelicals in the realm of politics.  In 1962, Newt married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old and she was 26.  In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Jackie after starting an affair with Marianne Ginther, although Jackie did not initially want a divorce.1  Six months after his divorce from Jackie was final, Newt wed Marianne Ginther.2  But in 1993, while still married to Marianne, Newt started an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who was 23 years his junior.3  In an interview, Marianne said Newt suggested to her that they have an open marriage, but she refused.4  Newt and his second wife Marianne were divorced in May, 2000.  Four months later, in August, Newt married Callista.  How did Newt think about his past adulteries?  He said, ‘There’s no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.’5  

To my ears, that sounds a bit like the famous self-promoting non-apology, ‘My only problem is that care too much.’ 

What would John the Baptist and Jesus have said to Newt Gingrich? 

Probably the same thing John the Baptist said to Herod Antipas:  ‘It is not lawful for you to have her.’  Jesus said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery’ (Mt.19:9).  Since Newt committed adultery not once but twice, he should have been rebuked and told on both occasions, ‘It is not lawful for you to have her sexually, in any form.’  Plain and simple.

Pretty hard line, huh?

Many times, in situations like this, modern Christians of all stripes just accept a person’s adultery and make the adulterous relationship the accepted reality.  For example, in December 2011, after ‘Iowans for Christian Leaders in Government’ requested that Newt Gingrich sign their so-called ‘Marriage Vow,’ Gingrich sent a lengthy written response.  It included his pledge to ‘uphold personal fidelity to my spouse.’6  This seems to have satisfied most evangelicals and Catholics in the U.S.  We shrug our shoulders and accept the new ‘marriage.’  It’s as if we think sexual sin is unavoidable.  Or as if the ‘good intentions’ Newt had to actually marry Callista – as opposed to string her on as a permanent mistress for more than seven years – should be rewarded.  C’mon, give the guy some credit, right?

But can you imagine John the Baptist saying to Herod, ‘Well, I will get behind this as long as you pledge personal fidelity to this wife…’?  Ridiculous.  John went to his death defending God’s real definition of marriage.  Embarrassingly, Newt Gingrich claims to defend ‘family values’ and ‘faith’ against the rising tide of secularization.  So he opposes ‘gay marriage,’ but on what platform?  His own ‘marriage’ does not conform to the definition Jesus gave us, so what faith is he actually defending? 

And those Christians on the ‘religious right’ who accept Newt and Callista Gingrich's union as a ‘marriage’ are also hypocritical.  How can you insist on ‘male and female’ when you overlook the problem of adultery in one of your leading politicians?  Why do we give Newt and Callista the right to say they are legally ‘married’ – with all tax and legal benefits to boot – but not a gay couple?  Their ‘marriage’ is not a true marriage before God.  (And I’m not saying that we should have a theocracy; I’m for ‘civil unions’ for everyone, actually.  For this example shows us that definitions of marriage differ by religion, and if we are going to be politically – though not theologically – pluralistic, which we already are, we need to have ‘civil unions’ across the board.  See my paper Should I Be For or Against Gay Marriage for more explanation.)

Still, on a spiritual and an interpersonal level, if Christians were to love Newt Gingrich and Callista Bisek in truth, since they claim to be devout Catholic believers, we would invite them to dissolve their union.  The start of their union was in sin, and it does not redeem the past to continue in it.  Sometimes ‘good intentions’ just aren’t enough, like Herod learned.  God’s truth is not relative to your intentions.  And sometimes you can only grow by losing something.

So I’ll say it.  ‘Newt and Callista, it is not lawful for you to have each other.’ 

The same goes for any of us who have gotten into situations like them.  If there is something Jesus is calling you to give up, then regardless of whether you think Jesus will give you ‘benefits’ to compensate you for your loss, you need to give it up.  You’ll discover growth in the long run, even though it feels like losing now.

God, through His spokespeople, invites others to enter His truth.  For this, we get persecuted, imprisoned, and beheaded.  Or maybe just ignored and marginalized.  That’s how much people sometimes resist God.  Are we prepared for that?