Public or Private Morality

“He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8, NKJV).

Does a public figure’s private life really matter as long as it doesn’t affect his work?  Or can the two be separated? Is morality a public or a private matter? That’s the issue which confronts us today.

A generation ago we wondered whether it happened.  Today we wonder whether it matters.  Assuming that everybody has skeletons in their past and that none of us has the right to throw the first stone, we only care how issues are handled.

Can you separate public and private morality?  Let’s examine the issue, which goes far deeper than whether a public figure or someone in your company has or has not been faithful to his or her spouse, as the case may be.

When a person marries, he stands before the marriage altar and makes a commitment to the woman who stands by his side to “have and to hold…to love and to cherish” until death shall separate the two. The depth of this relationship can be traced back to the genesis of marriage when God made woman from the rib of man and Adam and Eve became one flesh–a term the Bible uses at least five times to define the closeness of the relationship which exists in marriage.  Marriage is the deepest and most intimate of all human relationships, involving the emotional, the physical (or the sexual), and the spiritual as well.  For centuries men and women have celebrated the commitment of their relationship publicly, at weddings or other occasions of celebration, with friends and supporters.

In business, friendships develop.  On the playing field, athletes develop bonds that produce deep, lasting friendships.  In the military, people who face death develop a comradeship and a closeness which produces life-long commitment.  Yet none of these compares to the intimacy and the closeness of two people who are married to each other.

When a person takes public office or a position in your company, he also makes a commitment.  Unlike the commitment of marriage, which is a life-long commitment (at least, that’s the intent of the marriage vows), the commitment of public office is for the duration of the term, whether it is two years, four years, or six years.  The person who is elected or appointed to a public position swears to uphold the laws of the land and the constitution which defines the power of the government.  Yet the commitment to public office is much different from the commitment a person makes at marriage.  Public commitment is more abstract, less personal, than the commitment of a man to his wife and family. It does not involve the emotional intensity of a relationship with people.

What’s the point?  If a person can’t be counted on to honor his commitment to a wife and family, can he be counted on to honor a less exacting commitment of public office?

The issue is further complicated by the fact that most individuals whose past is checkered by indiscretion, totally deny that they have been less than faithful husbands and wives, which then brings their very integrity into question.  So, the issue becomes compounded by dishonesty and deceit as a secondary issue.

This is not to suggest, of course, that anybody who is accused of infidelity is actually guilty, or that we try people by public forum with tabloids serving as district attorney and prosecutor.  But it is time to suggest that a person’s public and private morality are two sides of the coin, and that whatever happens in a person’s personal life will affect his public performance.  It all goes with the job.  Perfection is not the issue.  Performance is, and whatever takes place in private affects public performance and the quality of a person’s work, whether it’s in government or a public corporation.

Resource reading: Micah 6.