Discussing
Letterman's Confession

I very much agree with you about the abuse of power as much as sexual impropriety. But I think that many people just do not think that way.

Something similar occurred in an old church I used to attend. A powerful person (not a pastor) had an affair with a young woman. Both were on a church board. The affair was brief but after a while the woman (a worship leader) wanted to publicly repent (without disclosure of details). But because the man had never admitted the affair to his wife, the woman was not allowed to repent. She believed her ministry was hindered by the unconfessed sin. And instead of dealing with the sin, the church covered it up and I believe continued to abuse its power in this situation. The sin eventually came out after the woman left and I believe it was much worse because as far as I know (I moved a couple years later) the church has refused to acknowledge that it participated in an abuse of power.

We enter here a very curious area, theologically speaking. One question that needs to be asked is precisely who is in a position to proffer forgiveness of any kind. All sin is first and foremost a sin against God, and that's obvious enough (which is why in Mark 2 when Jesus forgives a man he'd never before met, the Pharisees were right to note that only God is in a position to offer such global forgiveness). Clearly Mr. Letterman sinned against also his girlfriend/wife, his little son, and any employee with whom he had an improper workplace relationship in his role as boss. But has he "sinned" against the rest of us? Against his viewers? His audience? Ours is a celebrity-driven culture that is fraught with the faux intimacies made possible by the mass media in which we feel like we have a connection to people who don't know us (and who wouldn't care to get to know us even if we met them one day). Letterman has breached public decorum and may be guilty of a workplace crime that those who employ him need to figure out and negotiate. But I think the prior question is worth pondering: Do we the public have any rightful place in forgiving a distant figure like David Letterman? Is that the right category by which to parse this? It may be less a matter of forgiveness and more a reminder that when we ingest what the entertainment industry and its bevy of celebrities have to offer us, we are soaking in the work and the personalities of people who are 9 times out of 10 very far removed from anything resembling a spiritual (much less a Christ-like) way of life. If we have managed to make peace with that--and most people have--then it's less a matter of forgiving the sins and lifestyles of these people and more recognizing that our disdain over what they do is just part of the bargain we make as Christians whenever we take in the entertainment that such figures have to offer.

Yes, Letterman was "brave" to come forward and admit wrongdoing, but I have to wonder if he would have done it if he hadn't had the threat of blackmail hanging over his head. Seems to me that is the only reason he confessed - because he got found out. Is he truly contrite? Not so sure.

Was it really a confession or a "cutting off at the path"? He was found it. It was just a matter of time before it was public. Is it better to be in control of how and when the confession comes, maybe make a few cute jokes along the way, or to allow the dogs to dictate how and when it is revealed? This should not be seen as courageous, but cowardly and self-serving.

But why should he owe any of us a confession? Why should any of us consider ourselves to be in a position where he owes us any explanation of his actions at all? The only people he really owes a confession or apology to are his now wife (if his involvement with his staff took place during their relationship) and/or any of the staffers involved. If it weren't for the blackmail and the criminal charges against the blackmailer - which are public proceedings - it wouldn't be any of our business at all.

Is this affair really about sexual harassment? It certainly fits into the category of sketch, but no one has come forward claiming that their relationship with Letterman was an abuse of power or harassment, so it seems, to me, a bit premature to call it so. I do think it is about Letterman sexual choices, but the man certainly doesn't show a Christian ethos, so I'm not overly distressed by who he slept with and when. That's between him and his wife.

So, I think until something more substantial comes about from this business, why should he be forgiven? I don't feel as though we should hold non-Christians to a Christian ethic.

Steven, I appreciate your post and the benevolent way in which it is proffered; however, I have a few issues with it. (1) “His public repentance”—I’m not sure what Letterman offered was repentance. At this point, it was “his public admission.” It remains to be seen whether it is true repentance, or mere remorse at getting caught. And outside a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ, he can only reform his behavior, not truly repent of his sin. (2) Without the extortion attempt and consequent exposure of these affairs, would Letterman have responded in such a “powerful, genuine, mature, decent, simple, honest, transparent, plain, brave” manner? That’s quite a string of complimentary adjectives, and I’m not sure they are warranted—at least not at this point. (3) “The stakes of public trust” are not the standard by which sin is judged. God sets that standard. (4) “I would have been more impressed”—This implies that you were impressed by Letterman’s admission, but would have been more impressed if …. I was not impressed at all. I will be impressed if he evidences the fruit of repentance in his life. You pose excellent questions, and it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Shoezee, great insight, great post. Sad commentary on the state of spirituality in most of our lives. I don't want to be complacent and "make peace" with anything that goes against God's perfect standard and his perfect will. Thanks, I needed that splash of ice cold water in the face! :-)

I couldn't help but realize on Monday night's show how often Letterman kept referring to himself as the victim. Yes, he was the target of a blackmail sceme, but what about all of the people he hurt? Aren't they the real victims?

He did finally apologize to his wife saying he had a lot of work to do to fix that relationship. And he apologized to his staff who had been hounded by reporters all weekend.

I guess for me the apologies seem less potent when Letterman keeps talking about being the victim. Sure he's getting a lot of attention, but he's a public figure who's own actions are causing him problems.

I wouldn't go as far to say Letterman should step down, but I think it's time he truly took responsibility for his actions instead of playing the role of the victim. It seems an apology is more sincere when it's not followed by excuses.

Letterman says all the affairs happened before he was married. So here is a single man who had a number of dalliances with some members of his staff. Then he marries and pledges fidelity. I don’t necessarily see these affairs as abuse of power. As a single man working most likely long hours, these are the women that he is surrounded by.

I have never liked Letterman’s politics or his self-indulgent sense of humor however, I would cut him a little slack. He sinned. He confessed publicly, he apologized to his wife on air. He did not attempt an elaborate cover-up, claim he “did not have sex with that woman”, argue about the definition of “is”, pay someone else to take the fall, or concoct lies. He stood up and took his lumps. Sure, he would have let these past affairs stay in the past if the blackmailer had not appeared, as one should about pre-married escapades. But when the light was shined on him, he took ownership of his sin without equivocation. Yes, he needs forgiveness and the grace of God. And there may be some further repair or even legal consequences to come. But I wish our politicians could be so forthright.

Luke 6:37
Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven

As Sandra25 indicates above, I think some of us (well, me, anyways) have been blurring "confession" with "admission." At first I considered Mr. Letterman's presentation to be a confession, but I don't think that accurately defines it. He expresses guilt, and he refers to his indiscretions as "terrible things," though only in quoting the blackmail letter. But does he truly think that was he did was terrible? And does he intend to never go in that direction again? If the answers to those questions are "Yes," then I think we can call it a confession.

I was happy to read this after blogging about it myself:
http://4thpoint.wordpress.com/...

Because every boss has power over a subordinate, I would suggest that any sexual relationship between them (besides being adultery) involves abuse of power, regardless if the subordinate complains. The relationship is inherently lopsided. (It's also generally in a community of other workplace relationships which are materially affected, but that's not my point).

When a boss says, "Hey how about a drink," the proposal is inherently loaded with the power a boss has, crossing from professional leverage to personal pressure. It might be mild, it might be full-on harrassment, but it's still an abuse of power, whether or not they ever have sex, file a lawsuit, or fall in love.

As for holding people to an ethic, I would suggest there is only one basic standard, which is God's design for humanity. We might hold some office-holders to particularly high standards because of public trust, but the baseline doens't change whether you're Christian, Hindu, or atheist.

CHRISTIANS - Why are we "surprised" when we see sin destroy families and others? Wake up and look around. Why are we defending "the goodness" of Letterman's confession, rather than praying for him to come into a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, or as a warning of sins' destruction? What good is it if a man inherits the whole earth, yet loses his soul? Sexual Sin is an abomination to God, our HOLY God, yet the response (this article and comments) gloss over the spiritual implications of Letterman's lifestyle. So what if he still has his show/job/marriage/fans - if he doesn't have Christ (and he hasn't publically acknowledged HIM) he has NOTHING. This could be God's mercy to Letterman, by exposing him, to save his soul. Let's pray for him.

As far as I can tell there are no federal or state laws prohibiting managers or bosses from dating employees. I just did a check online. Nor are there any Biblical prohibitions. Nor are there any inherent moral prohibitions. In some of America’s workplaces, the hours are very long and the people you work with are frequently the only people you see or socialize with. It’s just reality. I have owned three companies (two advertising agencies and a clothing company). In all three companies I frequently worked till 7 or 8 pm. I had no energy for dating after work, I don’t frequent bars. While I never dated an employee I had no rules against employee dating.

This rigid class distinction between “Bosses” and employees is an artifact of the past and I have never run a company that way. I rarely hear the term boss anymore and the word itself has almost become a pejorative. Of course there are rules against sexual harrasment in the workplace but as far as I know no federal or state court considers dating sexual harrasment. Unless it is a superior putting unwanted pressure on a subordinate for dates or sexual favors...but that is covered by sexual harrasment laws and deservedly so. I think we invent too many extrabiblical laws for ourselves, like the outrage in another blog here for people who were overweight and assumed to be gluttons. Boy we like to judge each other.

It bothers me that we have to discuss the sins of every celebrity in the first place. It is true that if he had not been blackmailed, he would not be confessing on live TV. It is also true that his audience are not the ones he needs to apologize to, or make it up with. Nobody was a victim of his behavior except the woman involved, his family, his immediate staff whose working relations and environment may have been affected, and his own soul, and of course God. Its none of our business. Who are we to parse this scene at all? What is positive is that if any of us are subjected to blackmail, the ONLY way to set a blackmailer in their place is to show that we are not afraid of the information they possess, that we can face up to our own history and those who have a right to be hurt, and admit it all. Whether Letterman had already made private amends, is a matter of speculation. If not, he should have, but that isn't what blackmailers are concerned about. Privacy isn't just about hiding what we've done wrong, it is about who needs to know and who we owe explanation and restitution to, and that is not the whole world.

I would say we would all try to do our best to live according to the word of god and we would love to do just that and stand on it. But as people we all fall short of the glory of god,not making excuses for some of the behavior that goes on in this world today as for david letterman i think he did it the right way inspite of the consequent, better for him to tell then let his family and friends here it from somewhere else as we all have skeletons in our closet i wonder what the world would be like if we revile our flaws or secrets HUH!!!!! This world is full of judgement who are we to judge ones mistakes like god said he with out sin cast the frist stone. In gods grace amen.