Thanks to J.P., who commented on the Letterman entry and reminded me about Letterman's recent apology to his staff and sort of his wife Monday. 

Just watched that clip the other night.  It's a reminder that despite what public opinion may or may not do with Letterman, he still faces a tough road at home.   If it were someone other than Letterman - or another comedian - I'd have a hard time with the mixture of humor and humility.  But, this is who he is.  Humor in his case is not an effort to mock or to wink an eye with the audience as co-conspirators, but rather, his way of handling life - whether good or bad, richness or poverty. 

The news coverage I've seen is an interesting mixture.  Most seem somewhat happy to be able to poke fun at Letterman for a change.  They object less to his behavior than to the moral high-ground he has often seemed to hold during his many years on television.  He's always been ready with a quick jab to others who have failed in their behavior in some fashion (his recent comments about Sarah Palin's oldest daughter seem to be freshest in people's minds)- many commentators seem happy that it is Letterman's turn to eat some humble pie.  And let's face it, we all enjoy seeing the tables turned on someone, particularly if that person has made us uncomfortable or caused us additional embarrassment.

But let's be careful about this, as well.  If there are people who are going to enjoy being the ones dishing out some helpings of crow to Letterman, we need to be careful not to assume that the ribbings and chastisement  that Letterman has given over the years - and which he must endure himself now - are not deserved.

In essence, some writers and reporters seem to be saying, you had no right to be joking about others all these years, when you were doing very similar things.   The difficulty with this, is that it's wrong.  It confuses the message with the message-bearer.  It insists that the person pointing something out must be spotless, or somehow their observation is invalid.  As Christians though, we not only know that this is not the case logically, we also know that it's not even possible.  It is impossible to find a messenger that is thoroughly without guilt, who is not guilty at some level, whether or not it is guilt for the same sorts of things that they're pointing out in others or not.

Jesus, in chastising the crowd who gathered to stone the woman caught in adultery (John 8), was not defending the woman's behavior.  He wasn't saying your behavior is all equally detestable, so there's no place for judgment.   Rather, he was challenging the motives of the crowd.  A crowd that managed to catch the woman while letting the man get away.  A crowd that sought not the woman's rehabilitation, but the quick entertainment of a bloodletting.  Jesus' last words to the woman are telling.  Go now, and leave your life of sin.  Her sin remained and needed to be turned away from. 

Nobody is perfect, however, guilt is guilt.  Failure is failure.  And what the smug laughers are missing at this point is that Letterman is doing something that not all of his targets have done - he's admitted that what he did was wrong.  He's admitted that there are other people involved than himself, and he's apologized for the impact that his actions have had on them.  And admiring that way of handling the situation in no way condones what he has done, just as his failures in no way have to be interpreted as condoning or legitimizing similar actions that he has mocked over the years.