The allegation that National Association of Evangelicals President Ted Haggard has consorted regularly with a male prostitute and taken methamphetamine is starting to look like so many other scandals that have hit media-prominent Christian preachers. The accusation comes at a time when the leader's influence is socially or politically significant, it's made by an unsavory character on the fringe of society, it produces a combined denial and admission from the leader, it prompts a series of supporting statements from members of the leader's flock, and it prompts others in the leader's organization to launch an investigation.
Of course, readers of Sinclair Lewis's Elmer Gantry know this story all too well. Readers of 2 Samuel know it too.
Reports are that Haggard admitted that some of Mike Jones's allegations are true. From reports of the saved voicemails that Jones has produced, it appears that Haggard may be admitting to drug use, to which the voicemails allude. So Haggard's line of defense may become, Yes, I used drugs, but no, I didn't have sex with a man.
In either case, however, Haggard is probably finished. Jimmy Swaggart's recovery to markedly lesser prominence depended on his powerful Pentecostal persona, something that Haggard cannot claim. Further, the Colorado Springs evangelicals whom he leads aren't as likely to allow his continued leadership as were Swaggart's television diaspora.
We make one broad observation. Haggard is married, the father of five, the pastor of a huge church, and the president of a huge organization. He risked all that for something that he wanted to keep secret from all those people. Now that it is not a secret, he is ruined. Sin is powerful.
Update: The independent board of overseers for Haggard's church has stated that they find him guilty of sexual misconduct and have acted to remove him from his position with the church. There's nothing to be happy about here.
9 comments:
While I do respect SWNID's opinions and insights, I would have to say that we would disagree on the subject of homosexuality. As a result, I believe it also affects our position on what Haggard is capable of after this turmoil is in the past. For me, it would seem that he still can serve some value in the kingdom, simply by sharing with the world how difficult it is to hide something that is so foundational to who you are. The Church has forced him to do so, and he felt as if all these other things mattered less than fulfilling his carnal desires.
The true issue, for me, lies not with the issue of homosexuality, but with the issue of adultery. The drug use aside, I think that this adulterous aspect will be the hardest to overcome, because the reality is that in many cases there are signs of orientation which get swept under the rug.
My prayers are with he and his family.
Sin is foundational to who we are. If we sin in secret, is it because the church has forced us to do so?
jb in ca,
I understand your point. However, it has no bearing on what I said since I prefaced my statement with,
"While I do respect SWNID's opinions and insights, I would have to say that we would disagree on the subject of homosexuality."
Thus, your interpretation of the event and mine will be vastly different.
Dustin, why is the fact that a man is attracted sexually to other men "foundational to who [he is]" in a way that other aspects of his experience are not?
Why do we call this an "orientation" when we don't call other matters, like, say, whether one is easily angered or habitually shades the truth, the same?
Why is the church responsible for someone's concealing desires for the same sex but not so for concealing, say, domestic abuse?
Sure, one aspect of the issue with Haggard is that he seems to have been unfaithful to his wife. But the ethical issue of gay sex is much more than that. How can anyone who of Christian faith (I assume that by identifying yourself with an icon of Jesus you are not being ironic) take issue with the witness of Scripture, affirmed historically by the church, as to the divine intention for human sexuality? How can a person even without faith bypass the very obvious evidence of nature?
What makes anyone think that we have somehow discovered something on this subject that changes everything? Only by assuming such can you dismiss JB as you do, and how you can assume such is breathtaking in its hubris.
First, I am not saying that homosexual attraction is a foundational aspect of the homosexual man. What I am saying is that sexuality is a key component of our humanity; a key aspect of how God created us. God created us with a sexual component, thus to ask that anyone simply ignore this component seems to ask that they ignore a part of who they have been created to be. Now I am not saying that one should give in to such an aspect whenever they so choose, but rather to allow that such an aspect of us should be conversed about and discovered within the confines of a monogamous, committed relationship inside of "marriage" (how ever that can be defined for the individual).
Thus, I am not dismissing it with hubris, but rather bringing up another aspect. As I can already see that you have an opinion opposite my own and did not read clearly what I wrote, then there seems to be no need to continue any discussion. Your attempt at analogy is lacking, as is your understanding of the position of those who have a gay or lesbian orientation and still desire a relationship with God.
I doubt very much that I have misunderstood your point.
I find it completely inconsistent internally (first you say that homosexuality is foundational [that was your word], then that it is not foundational, then you say that sexuality is "a key component," which if not to say it is foundational, is merely to argue over undefined terms). But you must acknowledge that your position is utterly out of step with the witness of scripture and tradition.
And the analogies stand. What puts sexuality in a category exempt from consideration that it may be experienced in a way that reflects human weakness and fallenness?
And again inconsistently, you acknowledge this very point. If sexuality is foundational, or something that if denied lessens us as persons, what keeps us from defining sexuality not just as hetero or homo but as mono or poly? What if my "orientation," which is to say my consistent desire, is toward multiple partners? You insist on some kind of faithfulness to a marriage partner, of the same gender for those who desire such. But why that numerical limit, if a person experiences strong desire for more than one partner? Is the person who wants multiple partners being told to deny his sexuality just as much? If gender doesn't matter, why does number? Can a bisexual person never experience the fullness of his God-given sexuality?
But historically Christians recognize that our desire to have partners to which we are not committed in marriage is an experience of temptation. It's no different if the person who desires members of the same sex than it is for th eperson who desires members of the opposite sex who are not that person's spouse.
You want to expand marriage to allow it for people of the same sex, something never envisioned in Scripture, never allowed at any point of the tradition of Israel or the Church. That takes a pretty powerful insight, IMHO. But you offer no new "aspect" here, just special pleading and sloppy logic.
If a person who experiences same-sex attraction is denied his humanity or some such because there's no same-sex marriage, is that not also true of the heterosexual who never has the opportunity to marry? My single, chaste friends, some of whom wanted to marry, some of whom still want to marry, and some who never want to marry, will find it very disturbing to think that they've been denied their personhood. No, actually, they'll disagree.
To say yet again what should be clear, the hubris of your position is the implicity notion that no one among the people of God ever understood human sexuality on this vital point until Christians in the last generation discovered that homosexual sex was no different from heterosexual sex.
jim,
First, let me state that this will be my last comment directed towards you on this post.
Second, you misunderstood what I said. I never once mentioned that I believe "homosexual" attraction was a foundation aspect of humanity, but rather sexuality was a key component of who God created us to be and how God created us to function within this world. Each of us has a sexual side, which must be utilized within confines. However, to deny such an aspect of our created humanness is to say that God created us incorrectly.
Third, it also takes hubris on your part to assume that YOUR interpretive method of scripture combined with a presupposed vast knowledge of contextual and historical information is the only possibly correct one. Also, not to mention that you assume that I share a view of scripture, as the only rule and measure of guidance in life and faith, and that it is not possible to view it in a different fashion. Also, it assumes that God cannot function outside of what you believe God is revealed as in scripture. That's what I find so interesting about some people who claim the authority of scripture--they often do so to the denial of God's own power and authority.
I appreciate your insight and the opportunity to discuss. However, as I think this type of medium is not conducive for such things, this will be my last comment. Thank you for your time.
Oh, and I almost forgot to add something. The slippery slope argument does not work for me. It is something used in argumentation to simply make your opponent's position sound far worse than it truly is. Why not say that to allow women to speak in the church leads to women beating men and claiming dominance in the home? The same logic applies, and it is illogical at that.
You're splitting hairs on the "foundational" question. But you've come to the point in the process. You think that the existence of deep-seated desires for the same sex is evidence that God made people that way. But that simply ignores the possibility that human fallenness is deeply rooted. Haven't Christians historically believed that some human desires are evil, even if they are deeply rooted in a person's experience? That's the point of my analogies that you want to dismiss casually.
Your argument amounts to "whatever is, is right." But there are things horribly wrong with the world, yes? And with humans?
Second, there's no slippery slope in my argumentation. You mistake my argument if you think there is. I'm not saying that allowing homosexual marriage will lead to allowing polygamy. I'm saying that there's no difference in arguing in the case of same-sex attraction from the existence of a deep-seated desire to its naturalness to its divine endorsement and the same move in the case of multiple-partner attraction. Why are you so committed to committed relationships when some people don't function well in committed relationships?
In fact, if we allow that some are heterosexual by (God-given?) nature and some homosexual by the same, is it not true that some are bisexual on the same terms? How is committed marriage to a single partner possible for them? Are we denying an aspect of their God-created humanity if we insist on just one partner?
Thanks for admitting that your view of Scripture is different from what Christians have held for centuries. But let's allow for what you assert is a way of being Christian. Never mind that Christians have historically not seen God's revelation of himself in Scripture as a compromise of his power but of his commitment to humanity (all Christians believe that God self-limits his power in some respects). We'll allow your point, at least for argument, as an option.
But is it still not pretty breathtaking to assert that on gay sex all the law and the prophets, Jesus and the apostles, the church fathers and councils didn't get it right until James Boswell came along in the 1970s? There's the hubris.
You see, it's merely not my understanding of Scripture here. It's the universal understanding until very, very recently. You're in a radically revisionist camp, and on a matter that can affect the lives of people for a very long time if we get it wrong.
Go in peace, brother, if that's your choice.
Post a Comment