For the second time in less than a year David Blunkett (pictured) has been forced to resign from the United Kingdom government. Last December he had to resign as Home Secretary (one of the top five government posts) over the 'nannygate' affair. After the Labour victory in our general election last May he was brought back in as Work and Pensions Secretary. Now he has been brought down again because he broke the code of conduct for MP's when taking jobs on leaving the government (I won't bore you with the details). On both occasions Blunkett resisted the pressure to resign, gaining support from the Prime Minister. But now he has gone, probably for ever.
One of the arguments raised in Blunkett's defence was that, while he may well have broken the rules, he was really good at his job. Therefore he should be allowed to stay. After all, it's not that important how a man behaves, as long as he delivers the goods in his work. Bill Clinton caused the same argument to be raised in his defence during the Monica Lewinsky affair. For some it was unimportant whether he committed adultery; as long as he performed his duties as President well, his personal life should not be called to account. Others felt that Clinton had besmirched the dignity and status of the Presidency in what he had done. He was the President and should have set some kind of example to the nation.
For Christians this is something of a non argument...
I don't have a Christian life, a social life, a private life, a working life, a sporting life and a family life. I don't have a life that can be put into compartments that do not affect or overlap each other. I have one life that controls and determines all aspects of that one life. I cannot be one thing and then another; the way I act and behave as a father and husband is not detached from my work. The way I work 9 to 5 is not divided from what I do on Sundays in the church. I am me wherever I go and whatever I do.
You cannot separate the man from the message. Mahatma Gandhi said that for him it was irrelevant whether an historical person called Jesus of Nazareth ever lived. The teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, whoever brought it or wrote it, would still be powerful. That argument sounds perfectly reasonable but is actually totally illogical. You just cannot separate the person of Jesus Christ from the teaching he brought. His teaching had authority not only because of what he said; his life was proof of his words. He just didn't talk a good talk, he walked a good walk. Jesus didn't just practise what he preached; he preached what he practised. He invited people to have a look at his life to see if there was anything in his behaviour that was at odds with what he taught. They couldn't find anything (and believe me, they tried); there wasn't anything there. What you saw and heard was what you got. Jesus was the genuine article. So it is with his people.
The life I live is not in fact my life. It is Christ who lives in me in the person of the Holy Spirit. That one singular Christ life is not divided, separated, partial or compartmentalised. What I am in Church is what I am at home. Who I am in the office is who I am at the dinner table. The way I treat money with the taxman is the way I treat money with God. The way I speak with my fellow believers is the way I speak with my unsaved friends at the game. I'm not a saint one day and a foul mouth the next.
I know many us will be familiar with those wristbands that have WWJD on them: 'what would Jesus do?' I prefer to change it just a little: 'what WILL Jesus do?' He will always act as Jesus; and since he lives in me, so will I.
Comments