So I use language such and metaphors tied to growth, development, maturity, etc. From a religious perspective, the more attractive notion is that of pilgrimage.

I recognize that most evangelicals and some mainline groups, and some catholic groups have a set of rules, but my perspective is that they are unrealistic, but unwise and often impossible. I’ve never been thrilled by the notion of legalisic perfectionism–in any area–sexuality, relationships or family. Legalism, in all its forms, is really death-giving stuff.

I go back to covenant…covenants get renegotiated.

Your reframing of political leaders to bureaucrats is intriguing. How do/did you handle the issue of religious leaders? Miki named Senator Ensign, but she could have named many church leaders who have made the press for their indiscretions. I would be curious to see how you handled those issues, since those church leaders would readily admit that they have failed to live up to their own moral standards.

I feel a bit uncomfortable asking, though, because I feel that no one among us is immune to making these mistakes. Living a life according to ones own standards requires vigilance and care, in my opinion. Like walking a balance beam, one misstep can be disasterous.

We successfully took a counter-intuitive tack. We never positioned them as moral leaders, or even leaders, for that matter. Our kids understand that they are bureaucrats. Successful organizations require effective bureaucrats, but personal sexual morality doesn’t enter significantly into the matter. If you reframe the context from leader to bureaucrat, then the ethical expectations change. They’re expected to be fine managers, but what they do with their personal life is not intended to set an example, positive or minus, for our kids, or others. The first three you mention, broke covenants with their stakeholders and will appropriately pay the piper. The distinction has to do with promises and the accountability demanded by business boards and investment demands. Thus, there were no significant surprises to any of us. But there were teaching opportunities for the kids…They got to learn about covenants. But we emphasized the theological and psychological truth that people are essentially good, though tainted by evil.

With that background, we were able to train our kids to think of relationships in terms of convenants. Covenants can be broken at the will of the partners, but the assumptions of choice are built into the setting.

Our marriage, for example, has been a 50+ year long covenant. She acts and thinks in ways I don’t care for, and I do the same for her. However, the covenant bridges the issues, making them growth matters usually open to negotiation.

We both understand that a covenant can give life, but sometimes when broken, it gives death. We choose life and work out our differences. Our kids have chosen to do the same with their mates.

Our kids can respond to these settings with a ho hum, yet readily assume responsibility as a result of their education. Candidly, I hope this shifts the context of the subject.

Admittedly, my model doesn’t handle all the issues and there are inherent weaknesses to it. But all models have some contextual and/or inherent weaknesses.

We just don’t see any reason to tut-tut about other’s hypocrisies and failures. I’ve never put this in print before, so thanks for the opportunity.