Though many things are percolating in my brain this morning, foremost on my mind is the Ted Haggard story. By now, surely, almost everyone is familiar with the story; a quick and basic summary is here.
Some folks I know are delighted when stories like these come out. In a sense, a certain amount of schadenfreude is understandable. When the very people who condemn sexual sin are themselves brought down by that very sin, it’s hard not to take a certain degree of satisfaction in hypocrisy exposed. I have friends — mostly secular — who regard hypocrisy as the greatest of all possible sins. Though it surely is no virtue to live a double life, I am less certain than they that to fall dramatically short of one’s own professed ideals is the worst thing one can do.
Yesterday, in a letter to his congregation, Haggard said something remarkable, something that resonated with me instantly:
There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I’ve been warring against it all of my adult life.
I nodded with recognition when I heard that line. Ted Haggard is my brother in Christ; he and I have been washed in the blood of the lamb. Of course, my views on faith and sexual morality are quite different from the ones that he and his massive New Life Church profess. But I understand what it is to fight an outer war against an inner demon. That’s the sort of struggle Haggard seems to refer to.
For years and years in my life, I struggled with boundaries. I had very poor emotional, physical, and sexual boundaries with virtually everyone in my life. From my teens until I was 31, I didn’t lead a double life — I led a triple or quintuple one: affairs; inappropriate relationships with students; regular patterns of betrayal and deceit; addiction to alcohol and other drugs — and a series of lies that created the most extraordinary house of cards. God’s grace, a great therapist, a wonderful Twelve Step program, and my own willingness to go to any lengths to turn my life around saved me. I don’t live as I once did.
But I remember what it was like to live in a world with fluid boundaries. I remember what it was like to have only a passing relationship with the truth. I remember what it was like to spend my days saying to myself, "God, if they (my family, friends, wives, lovers, students, colleagues) only knew the truth, they would all hate me!" I remember the hypocrisy and the self-loathing very well. And though I trust my God and I trust in my conversion, I don’t think I am invulnerable to a dramatic, spectacular relapse. Though I am more relaxed today than I once I was, I am always alert to the signs that I may be slipping back into old behavior.
So yes, I write a lot here on this blog about boundaries. Writing as a Christian, writing as a man, writing as a pro-feminist, writing as a husband, writing as a former addict, I try and make a compelling case for boundaries. My writing about older men-younger women relationships, student crushes, pornography, self-mutilation, and so forth is based on a mix of intellectual convictions, spiritual commitments, and painful personal trials. I write because I recognize a part of me that is cold, cruel, and predatory — what Haggard called "repulsive and dark." My commitment to being a safe, loving, trustworthy man is in no small part rooted in my clear memory of my years as a dangerous, narcissistic, dishonest, boy.
I am happy to say that I don’t lead a double life today. Follow me around with a camera; listen to my phone conversations; track my website visits; chart my spending habits. What I say I do I generally do and what I say I don’t do I don’t do. Does this make me more virtuous than, say, a Ted Haggard? No. Ted is in the midst of a spectacular public fall. My fall — which ended with a 1998 suicide attempt and hospitalization — was far less public. It’s only as a consequence of my humiliation and near-death experience that I am as committed to accountability as I now am.
And of course, accountability is a hugely important tool. I check in a lot with a lot of people. I make sure I get asked questions regularly about where I’ve been and what I’ve been doing. I recommend, for example, the Covenant Eyes program, which is installed on both my work and home computers. I have people in my life who monitor me — not out of hostility but out of love. They respect my transformation but know that a certain amount of darkness is always present inside of me, and as a result,to paraphrase Reagan, they "trust but verify." Sometimes being held accountable feels intrusive. But I know that giving up a certain amount of my privacy to loved ones and mentors is a small price to pay. Today, I enjoy freedom from that crushing sense that I am leading multiple lives. I don’t worry about what lies I told to whom. And I don’t wonder "What would they say if they knew?", because I know that all who ought to know, know.
Do I think Ted Haggard sinned? Of course. He betrayed his wife and family and congregation. The guilt must be devastating for him; the pain enormous for his loved ones. But if he and I are at all alike, I suspect that in the midst of his hurt and shame, there is an undercurrent of elation. To finally have it all come out, have the secrets revealed, have the light shine in — as awful as it is, when it happened to me it left me feeling giddy with relief. I hope that on the next stage of his journey, Ted Haggard feels some of that giddiness along with his hurt. I hope that he remembers the shame, too, and allows that memory to encourage him to surrender his pride and accept strict accountability measures.
Ted Haggard preached about the evils of homosexuality. Perhaps, on his recovery journey, he will realize how dangerous it is to confuse one’s own self-loathing with a political agenda. Even now, as my MRA critics point out, I too can veer dangerously to confusing my personal narrative of transformation with a lack of sympathy for men who have not reached the conclusions I have reached. My commitment to seeing men change is, I note, not solely rooted in my own story! It would be pop-psychology and reductionism at its most superficial to suggest that those of us who are passionate about any given issue are only acting to resolve inner emotional conflicts. There is such a thing as a genuine conviction that is separate from one’s own peculiar pathologies, and I am convinced that both my faith and my feminism fall into that category. But there is no question that for many of us, our own private pain and our public politics are often tied together.
Marianne Moore famously wrote that
There never was a war that was not inward; I must fight till I have conquered in myself what causes war.
To put it far less eloquently, if we are going to be truly effective evangelists and teachers and politicians and activists, we must wage an inner battle as well as an outer one. This is not a recipe for self-involved navel gazing at the expense of public service. It’s a recognition that it is in our nature to hate what we are, to rage against the very things we fear most about ourselves. Ted Haggard admitted as much yesterday, and I am reminded I must regularly do the same. I must fight — we all must fight — till we have conquered in ourselves what causes all the wars, big and small.
You installed spyware on your own computer? Who does it report to?
As someone who (secularly) hates hypocrisy in such as Haggard, let me say that it’s not this:
“I am less certain than they that to fall dramatically short of one’s own professed ideals is the worst thing one can do.”
that bothers me.
I am quite aware of what it is to be human, and am therefore, sympathetic, empathetic, and compassionate about ALL of us who set ourselves standards and fall short. That is the nature of humanity: we have glorious vision and can’t always reach those heights.
I am someone who regularly fails, for example, to be the perfect parent of my pre-parenting imaginings. I’ve snapped at my eldest when busy with other things; I’ve apologized.
But here’s the rub. I do not go up to people in the street and *shame* them for failures I also have. I do not threaten to take their children away. I do not suggest that all parents who snap must be considered Not-Parents, and tell them they are damned to eternal hellfire.
I do not even assume that my parenting goals are their parenting goals. Or that their children are like my children. Or their lives mirror mine.
The problem that lights my anger is that this man, whose homosexual feelings were expressed in shame and darkness, dares to try and force that shame on people innocent of the stain.
The fact that Haggard’s repulsive and dark urges, his demonization and narcissism, made themselves known through his homosexual feelings does not make other homosexuals repulsive and dark.
THAT is the most blatant narcissism, and is the sin at which I point the finger. Not that he has repulsive and dark places - we ALL do - but that he has given them wholly to another group of people to carry: that it is two men making love that are the problem.
It is catagorically not. Nor is it women’s fault, for all the rapists; nor is it people of colour’s fault, for all the racists. If a serial rapist feels shame about how he preforms sex, it is not the fault of heterosexual sex, or heterosexuals in general. IT IS HIS FAULT.
It is not failing to live up to a standard that makes me so angry. It is giving your shit to a whole group and saying - You’re the problem, not me.
I see no indication that Haggard is addressing or rectifying that sin; no indication that he will do anything but come back against homosexuals in his “war” with his own demons.
West Coast Arwen: You said it!
I agree that it is TRUE, we all have our dark places. But we don’t all go out and preach hatred and worse against other people that we actually (guiltily) INDENTIFY with. It would be as though you, Hugo, in your darker times, used your power as a teacher and counselor to convince others that the women and girls you preyed upon WERE SLUTS AND DESERVED TO BE BEATEN, KILLED, or HAVE THEIR CHILDREN TAKEN AWAY.
THAT’s why it seems like no one is giving this guy a break. He hasn’t even realized yet what he did wrong. It wasn’t getting caught (probably his first thought) and it wasn’t even his sexual and drug failings; the REAL crime was/is his projection of his own self-loathing onto INNOCENT people, and his rabble-rousing aginst the innocents.
I’m just going to agree with what West Coast Arwen and Kathy McCarty said, as they said it way better and more eloquently than I could have.
But I do want to add that I’m one of those who found the schadenfreude of the whole thing to be just delicious.
If you told me last week that today I’d be feeling a smidge (just a smidge, mind you) of sympathy for a homophobic idealogue who has spent years purposely seeking the erosion and/or denial of specific human rights, I’d have said you were mad. Yet today, in fact, I did. Which is not to say that I’ll continue to have that feeling.
He asks for forgiveness, and he includes in that request forgiveness for the man who risked a great deal to bring all of this hypocrisy to light. At a time when, of course, many of the fundies were ready to chase after “the accuser” with torches in hand. (Which is not to say that many of them haven’t remained of that mindset.)
What matters most to me, of course, is whether Haggard takes this turn of events as an opportunity to reexamine his sexuality (and his political and religious ideas of same) honestly, or whether he’ll continue with the “I have demons” schtick, which is just so pathetic and sad. (And oppressive, destructive.)
David Brock came around, didn’t he? Really, who could have predicted that the dogmatic arch-conservative who wrote that hateful piece of crap about Anita Hill would go on to found Media Matters.
So, you never know.
Though of course, I’m not going to hold my breath, waiting for Haggard to grow a conscience. By which I mean, not just the conscience that recognizes the harms inherent in his matrimonial deceit; here, indeed, the personal is extremely political.
Arwen, I’m having trouble making sense of your comments.
For me, it’s the sins I’m most familiar with that I’m most forcefully against–that I look for when I’m hearing stories, and warn people against whenever I see an opening. I don’t view that as hypocrisy, or as demonization–I view it as, I’ll warn you about what I know.
In concrete terms–I’ve heard my grandfather’s stories about being badly beaten by his father; I’ve heard my father’s stories about my grandfather attempting to kick him down a flight of stairs; I have my scars from being hit with random objects that were at hand when my father was furious; and I have my own memories of badly hurting my brother when I was furious. I’m going to warn people against expressing anger uncontrolledly or unthinkingly; I’m very very VERY scared by that particular demon. Similarly, I spent years–too many years–waking up with the intention of proving that I was better than the people that had treated me badly; I-will-MAKE-them-respect-me and one-day-I-will-get-even-with-them got me up for years when I’d otherwise have been too depressed to function. But running on malice and greed cost me too much–cost me friends, cost me health, came perilously close to costing me sanity. Of course I will warn people about being consumed by money, or consumed by revenge; those roads are fiercely dangerous and I’ve been down them way too far to have any delusions on that score.
On the other hand, alcohol has not been one of my problems. I’m not going to spend that much time warning people against substance abuse. I don’t know it in my bones the way I do anger and greed. So why not let Hugo–or my friend Mark, who ended up in jail for drunken stupidity–talk about that problem? They actually know something about it.
I don’t think Schadenfreude is ever justified, folks. No matter what, no matter what, no matter what. Joy in another’s misfortune is, in fact, a fairly major sin. I stood up for Bill Clinton in 1998, I stood up for Mel Gibson in 2006, I stand up for Ted Haggard now. This is not an indicator that I think the conduct of any of these men is acceptable — but when I hear that someone has fallen, that someone is hurting, I hurt with them. Regardless of who they are or what they did.
Hugo, this, in my humble opinion, is one of the Best POSTS that you have written.
I met Pastor Haggard about 15 years ago at New Life Church in Colorado Springs. I still have close friends who are part of that congregation.
I cannot begin to imagine the pain those wonderful saints of God are experiencing.
But I do pray for them. I pray for their former Shepherd, and I pray for his family.
The words of 1 Corinthians 10:11-14 really are true, huh?
Sam; there are a bunch of things that seperate being the victim of abuse and speaking out to warn about abuse, and being someone who has homosexual sex and goes around shaming homosexuals.
If you were nightly beating all the members of your family, and then going out and speaking loudly about how beatings were bad *but families tempted one towards beating*, so FAMILIES were immoral, I would say you carried the same sin Haggard does.
That is not what you’re saying you’re doing.
For the record, Hugo, I am experiencing no Schadenfreude. I am experiencing deep anger.
“I don’t think Schadenfreude is ever justified, folks. No matter what, no matter what, no matter what. Joy in another’s misfortune is, in fact, a fairly major sin.”
That’s if you’re one to believe in sin. While I agree it is wrong to take joy in someone else’s misfortune, in this case I can see how some can and would make an exception. This is a pig who preached hate, who profitted from preaching hate and all the while he was doing just as he pleased behind closed doors. Like Arwen, I am angered by this hypocritical pig, not happy at his outing.
It is his wife and children that deserve your (an our) empathy. He deserves exactly what he’s gotten - to lose his cushy job preaching hate.
I’m withy Lya Kahlo on this one. I suppose sympathy is implicitly good, but I’ll save mine for people less vile than this man. You’re a better man than I, perhaps, Hugo, because I have no sympathy for this monstrous bigot whatsoever.
WC Arwen and lya has expressed what I wanted to say.
I’ll save my sympathies for this man when he comes around from his mistakes and stops vilifying gay folks. Until then, I’ll have sympathies for his wife and kids for having to go through this in a public arena.
Arwen–just to make sure you got it–I’ve definitely suffered abuse; my point was that I’ve also perpetrated abuse–and that makes me more, not less, likely to warn against it.
And I think, actually, that I’d come close even to your second scenario. Having seen just how much damage uncontrolled anger can cause in a family, I’d be VERY likely to tell someone with problems with lack of control when angry that, until their behaviour when angry is under control, they should avoid getting married and having children; and I think that I would be justified in saying that EVEN IF I were still, myself, angry and abusive. (Hugo sees grace as deliverance from addiction; I see grace as deliverance from fury.)
“Our church’s overseers have required me to submit to the oversight of Dr. James Dobson, Pastor Jack Hayford, and Pastor Tommy Barnett. Those men will perform a thorough analysis of my mental, spiritual, emotional, and physical life. They will guide me through a program with the goal of healing and restoration for my life, my marriage, and my family.”
Gag me with a spoon. Dang, Ted is getting *help* from Dobson? Let’s hope he can pray away the gay. *snort* I totally agree with the Pandagon article on Ted.
I’ve been around addicts all my life. Thank god I just don’t have it in me to become an addict, because I’ll be a poster-child. I can’t stand former addicts that develop a condescending attitude towards addicts and ppl that helped them get over the addiction afterwards, like they’re “above” them and beyond reproach now. UGH. I’m getting a similar feeling about this Ted guy.
Sam; I have no doubt that Haggard should go nowhere near other homosexual men; nor should an abuser be near families until he or she has got their problems sorted out.
There is a difference between saying: “I’m not safe to be in a family because I have anger issues”, and “Families are shameful, mislead, or damned to hellfire and should be legislated against, because their motives and their emotional health is suspect.” Saying “I’m not great coping with my anger around children and I shouldn’t be a parent” is different than saying “Children are destroying society as we know it.”
If Haggard was saying, “Well, I’m struggling with my sexual identity and I don’t think I’m morally comfortable with my homosexual urges, so I will *abstain* from hanging out with gorgeous young homosexual men whom I may wish to sleep with”, I’d see no problem with it. If he were saying: “I hate myself because I find the dude who delivers the male super hot”, I’d have no problem with it.
*g*. I meant “the dude that delivers the mail.”
Hee hee. Freudian homonym.
Hugo, not to pile on, but to accuse WC Arwen and Kathy’s eloquent posts of being motivated by schadenfraude is among the most uncharitable and unfortunate misreadings of your commenters I’ve seen from you on this blog. WC Arwent expressed anger and a withholding of forgiveness and compassion until such a time as Haggard actually comes to terms with the full extent of his wrongdoings. Her reasons are clear and eloquent. THere’s really not a hint of Schadenfraude there. It’s out there in the blogs and the world but your nothing your commenters said put them in that group.
Hugo,
I found the comment you highlight to be the most offensive part of the entire affair; I heard “There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I’ve been warring against it all of my adult life” as him saying that his attraction to other men is repulsive and dark and he’s been warring against it the entirety of his adult life.
The notion that same-sex attraction is “repulsive and dark” has destroyed many a gay man and woman, and it seems to me to not be something to celebrate.
Thinking on it, Sam, I can only imagine we’re talking past each other in that you’re seeing homosexuality as being intrinsically as problematic as battery.
If Haggart et al are only seeing homosexuality through the lens of sexual, paid for or anonymous affairs with prostitutes or bathhouse partners or call lines, and aided often by drug and alcohol use, then their problem is with a particular partying and promiscuous lifestyle. If Haggart wants to warn against the pain that lifestyle causes both himself and those he loves, I would not be filled with anger at his hypocrisy.
The thing that makes me angry is the conflation. That gay life partners who have committed to one another are necessarily - due to their orientation and some people’s own random projections and demons - seen as also sniffing coke off the bodies of random strangers in bathhouses. The argument that frustrates me is the idea that GBLT persons should not marry, should not have or adopt children: all because Haggart and friends frame their lives and experience in this incredibly limited view of promiscuity and excess and inability to control oneself. Come ON.
Heterosexuals who party or who cheat or who do drugs or who engage in prostitution are never construed as being representative of the dangers of heterosexuality. It’s just plain STUPID, brought about by this guy’s limited understanding of himself.
Or maybe he’s sick. I don’t know. His sickness should not be used to paint my GBLT friends and family. Period.
I feel so much better about myself now that I’m “out”. If I do make some decision in the future to remain celibate for theological reasons, I’m *still* going to be open about the fact that I’m gay.
Living in the light is worth the risks of making yourself vulnerable. I promise.
DJW, read more closely: the comment about schadenfreude was directed to KS, who copped to it directly.
As for the “dark and repulsive” part, I read that not as a reference to homosexuality but as a reference to sexual addiction. Given that Haggard hasn’t clarified exactly what he meant by “dark and repulsive”, and given that his behavior was secretive and addictive, my reading is as fair as any other. I never once suggested that homosexual behavior, per se, was intrinsically dark; deception and compulsivity are.
This comment thread reveals to me the sad reality of the gulf between the secular and evangelical worlds. Our mistrust of one another is so great, our antipathy so reactive, that to ascribe goodness to the other, to profess empathy, is nearly impossible. We’re all guilty of this, and I am sorry for those I have hurt by seeming to ignore just how hurtful the church’s excusionary theology has been. By the same token, the anger at Haggard (calling him a pig) is ugly, ugly, ugly.
It’s one thing to dislike a man’s politics, and another to dislike him for having them.
I am officially 100% not against hypocrisy. Having and voicing the right opinions is good whether you are able to live in accord with them or not, and living well is good whether you support it with your words or not.
I do personally feel sorry for Haggard. His life probably sucks right now and, really, has for some time on some level. But I’m a pretty soft and sympathetic person.
But I am glad this happened because anything that discredits his odious point of view is good news to me. I don’t think to a real Christian it necessarily discredits anything - part of their whole ideology is that everyone is a sinner (hence why they don’t tend to be as anti-hypocrite as others) anyway. But it discredits them to the rest of us, and that’s a good thing.
Oh, sorry for the serial post, but it also lends credence (fairly or otherwise) to the idea that strong homophobia is just a cover-up for repressed homosexuality. That idea has the power to discredit homophobia itself as well as to suppress people who would otherwise express homophobic feelings. So I see that as a good effect of this relevation as wel.
No, Hugo. I disagree again with your sense that (I) at least, am coming from a place where I can have no empathy for the evangelical. If Haggard’s sin was one that hurt himself and his family; if his sexual addiction were not being writ large as political action; if there were not hundreds of GBLT men and women who are tarred with *the personal* brush of his own struggles in a political sphere, there would be NOTHING but empathy from me. I believe very much in redemption, although not within a Christian framework; and I believe there is no shame in Haggard confronting that which he has done which has hurt his family and his community.
HOWEVER, his message is *political*. And in that, no: he is not redeeming himself. He is not even seeing the problem with casting his homosexual feelings as shameful written on the families and sexualities of people whose lives have LESS THAN NOTHING to do with his own struggles.
That’s not a lack of empathy. That’s the *truth* that there’s a hell of a lot at stake, and he and his people have had a hell of a lot of power. I am utterly supportive of any community who wishes to live by whatever tenants, however irrational they appear to me: if the Amish eschew personal computers, and one of them was in pain because they couldn’t get off of your blog, I would have the utmost empathy that they were struggling with a standard they couldn’t hold themselves to. I would be supportive of their choices, and sad that they were hurting. However, I would fight any legislative action led by the Amish AGAINST personal computer ownership. (Not that they’d do such a thing.)
And when people are on the line, people whose lives are unheard because of one evangelical’s struggle with his own shame, then my empathy is suspended until the danger has passed and *everyone is protected*.
I can be empathetic to someone who has in the past been abusive, but I will not be nearly as empathetic if someone is actively abusing me. If I am being covered in bruises, my own safety comes first; and I would attempt to get away without violence, respecting the humanity of the abuser; but I would not be crouched in the corner empathizing about the path that led the abuser to get here. In the same way, I do not suggest that we demonize Haggard or do violence upon him: but he has come no where NEAR saying that he is filled with regret for the sins of projection he’s committed on the homosexual population.
I think alcoholism might be the best comparison here.
Take say a secret alcoholic who got up and called those who drink alcohol(whether in moderation or otherwise) evil and corrupting.
I don’t think it’s schadenfreude to be glad that his alcoholism is revealed because his attacks on social drinkers have been so harmful and so uncalled for.
But I think calling him a pig? Is utterly understandable. And the day that a, say, scientist legislates against Evangelicals getting married because their crazy beliefs are destroying our society? I would understand the pushers of such beliefs also being called pigs. Perhaps especially those who did a little weekend evangelizing to prostitutes.
Hugo, I’m starting to see a pattern from you that I find troubling. I’m not sure it’s your intention, but it’s coming across that you see the evangelical mistrust of (in this case) homosexuals, and our mistrust of evangelicals like Haggard, who preach against our very existence, as *equivalent*. And that troubles me. Greatly.
I somehow looked right past that short post, and assumed it was a general response. My apologies.
I somehow looked right past that short post, and assumed it was a general response. My apologies.
Hugo: I agree with you that you have never once suggested that homosexual behavior, per se, is intrinsically dark. Where you and I differ is that I believe that Haggard was sugesting that, and you seem to not believe that he was. :)
This comment thread reveals to me the sad reality of the gulf between the secular and evangelical worlds
I think you hit the nail on the head with this. I am sympathetic, from a non-evangelical background, to much of what you are saying about the inner struggle to make yourself a better person, and to hold yourself free of the dark temptations you find within yourself. But, at the same time, i’m unwilling (or unable) to give prominent evangelicals the benefit of the doubt in terms of interpreting their words in a charitable light.
To a great extent, this is because I’m a gay man; I find it hard to trust that people who have made me out to be an enemy of all that is decent in the world (and again, I am not speaking of you here, I am speaking of Haggard) are not doing so, when their words are capable of that interpretation. And so I find it hard to credit them with a more charitable interpretation.
I admit to feeling schadenfreude when the story first broke, and it was an instinct I disliked in myself. Now, I just find the entire thing sad; I cannot imagine what it must be like to hate one’s homosexuality the way that Haggard seems to hate his, and I feel nothing but pity for him.
Hugo,
I hope you don’t mind, from a Christian perspective, I have two questions.
Doesn’t Christ put hypocrisy right out there as one of the worst sins? He mentions it repeatedly, specifically in reference to judging and condemning “sex” crimes, as in the case of the “adulteress”. Even the Lords Prayer specifically mentions this, time after time, he seems to only exclude those who, like Pastor Ted, judge, and especially judge others while not judging themselves, from any possibility of redemption.
And, the second is a bit more obscure, it goes to my point that men like Ted are actually “Satan” worshipers. How do I come to that conclusion? They seem to believe that their religion is one based on accusation, which is completely opposite the teachings of the son of man, the only place we find that type of behavior in the book, is in Job, where the Hebrew word we translate as “Satan” might be better translated into English as “Accuser”. Since these folks clearly think that accusing and judging are the primary cornerstones of their religion, rather than what the Christ teaches, is it not then reasonable to ask if they follow Satan rather then the son of man?
I truly to believe that these folks commit the most heinous crimes against the son of man, and I truly do believe that they follow the fallen angel, but still, I hope for their redemption. But I cannot consider anything they do to be anything but oppositional to the son of man. If there truly is a hell, aren’t they, by the teachings of the son of man, the most likely to be sent there? Aren’t they the worst of all sinners by the teachings he gave us? The ones who don’t want redemption (because they think they don’t need it)? The ones with hardened hearts who not only reject the son of man, but try to replace his teachings with the teachings of the fallen one?
(ok, so 3+ questions…sorry)
Oh, sorry about the double post, but I shouldn’t have even focused on Ted. I’ve been reading a great deal abou the teachings of his church, with or without him, and I can’t see any way through it, they oppose the teachings of the son of man, they oppose the teachings of complete forgiveness on every level, and in every way, and only embrace the way of the pharisee, the way of the Accuser. Judgement.
As far as I can tell, the only relationship to the son of man, is that they use the old testament to try and prove over and over again that Christ was wrong. So that they can feel good about the stones they throw.
Shouldn’t we be praying for them, but shouldn’t we also be pointing out that they probably have very, very few teachings that the son of man would not directly oppose? It might be possible to call them Fundamental Jewish Orthodox, except for the fact that they are not, but I can see no way to call them Christian. They clearly reject the message and path of redemption by prefering to hold on to the right to judge, and condem, even when their own souls are at risk.
I cannot imagine you ever having such a “send them to hell” attitude, no matter what you’re struggles were.
Johnny, I think Ted Haggard has judged himself. When I saw that interview with him in his car, wife at his side, sounding like a trapped animal, I started to cry tears of recognition. I suspect he’s been merciless towards himself.
And New Life is not ruthlessly judgmental; opposition to legalization of homosexuality is based on one legitimate reading of Scripture. (It isn’t a reading I share, but I honor the integrity of those who read it at that way.) I know many folks who would love to be able to affirm gay and lesbian people, but their hermeneutic just won’t let them. There’s a difference between bigotry based on fear and hatred and a principled theological conviction. The secular left needs to acknowledge that. Ted Haggard is not Fred Phelps, and nothing he has ever said should suggest it.
I am 100% committed to full equality for gays and lesbians. I worship at a very liberal, affirming church. I teach courses on gay and lesbian history. And I can respect the integrity and the goodness of those who continue to label all sexual behavior outside of heterosexual marriage “sin.” I can try and reason with them via chapter and verse, mind you! But whether or not I can change their mind, I can honor their spiritual commitments.
I may not be gay or lesbian, but I have been told that I ought not to work with teens because I’m divorced. I’ve had people tell me to my face that my marriage is adulterous. Most who say it say it with regret and gentleness, trying to confront me with what they think of as my sin. I know in my heart my marriage is a joy to my God, and I can respect and like those who cannot respect and endorse my relationship with my wife.
It took a lot of guts to write this post, Hugo; kudos.
“I’m not sure it’s your intention, but it’s coming across that you see the evangelical mistrust of (in this case) homosexuals, and our mistrust of evangelicals like Haggard, who preach against our very existence, as *equivalent*. And that troubles me. Greatly.”
Leaving aside the particulars of your claim, arielladrake, it’s worth pointing out that what Hugo is expressing strikes me as a near perfect example of one of the most infuriating (to non-believers, that is, though sometimes to believers too) aspects of the Christian gospel–namely, the refusal to make justice a matter of desert, reciprocation, or merit. If forgiveness and empathy are total, then almost by definition they will be “unfair”–the laborer who works one hour gets paid the same as the laborer who worked twelve; the sinner who committed great wickedness receives the same grace as the sinner who did almost nothing wrong. In Christian charity, all sins are equal, because they are all the same in the only way that matters: they cause pain, and need forgiveness.
In a larger sense, this is parable of the prodigal son: the father gives great gifts to the prodigal, a genuinely irresponsible and wicked son who now seeks forgiveness, and the older son–who at worst is maybe guilty of being stuck-up and a little judgmental–throws a fit; how dare you feel such joy at the repentance of this sinner? The obvious lesson is, in the heavenly calculus of sin and redemption, there is nobody who needs more judgment or more suffering then anyone else. It’s all equivalent, because we’re all fallen, and the solution for all–gay-bashers and Haggard-mockers alike–is the same.
Thanks, Hugo, for your post on this topic. I, too, have struggled with addictive behaviors. I am grateful for those years and that I have learned about grace in my life as a result. I am reminded of this quote from Henri J.M. Nouwen:
“All the agony that threatened to destroy my life now seems like the fertile ground for greater trust, stronger hope, and deeper love.”
On another note: My wife and I recently visited All Saints on a Sunday morning. Your blogging about that church has caused some interest in breaking free from my fundamentalist roots.
You wrote: There’s a difference between bigotry based on fear and hatred and a principled theological conviction.
Although I know how you wanted this to read, I think it also reads well as “there’s a difference between bigotry based on fear and [bigotry based on] a principled theological conviction.
Regardless of the basis, it is bigotry. Persons I know are racial bigots based on (as they would argue) principled theological convictions. This hardly makes their opinions any less repulsive.
Unrelated note: I have no reservations in admitting schadenfreude as to this entire situation. I just wish he didn’t demonize homosexuality the way he does to maintain the respect of his followers.
“By the same token, the anger at Haggard (calling him a pig) is ugly, ugly, ugly.”
It’s one thing to dislike a man’s politics, and another to dislike him for having them.”
So? I fail to see what’s wrong about it being ugly. Has he not preached hate, encouraged it, and profitted from it? This isn’t a secular v religious issue. The man lied. He made lots of money off that lie. And worst of all, he’s dragged his wife and kids into his lies. I called him exactly what he behaved like - a pig a the trough.
And what exactly is wrong with disliking a hypocritical bigot? Perhaps this is where the secular v religious issues pops in. Being completely and entirely an atheist I feel no compulsion to like someone who’s made a living spreading hate around. I feel no compulsion to like someone who has a “do what I say not as I do” lifestyle. This is not hate or a denial that he could be honestly very remorseful and change. I’m simply not holding my breath. And besides, he doesn’t need *me* or other people who dislike him to like him. He needs his wife, his children, his friends/family and himself to like him.
“This comment thread reveals to me the sad reality of the gulf between the secular and evangelical worlds. Our mistrust of one another is so great, our antipathy so reactive, that to ascribe goodness to the other, to profess empathy, is nearly impossible. We’re all guilty of this, and I am sorry for those I have hurt by seeming to ignore just how hurtful the church’s excusionary theology has been. ”
I’m not sure I understand this bit. Are you saying that because I’m an atheist I can’t or wouldn’t say that someone religious was a good person or that I couldn’t or wouldn’t feel empathy for them? Sorry, but that’s bollocks. I feel empathy for Haggard’s also religious wife and children who’ve been humilated and betrayed.
That said, your statement about mistrust is bang on. Our camps don’t trust each other and I doubt they ever will. Haggard is a good example of why, at least for my part, I have great mistrust of the fundamentalist style religious.
Aside from the Haggard issue, Hugo, I just want to affirm and support you. I’m sad that you hit such a low point, but glad that you are where you are today.
And you do hint at an important issue about accountability and boundaries. I think it’s appropriate with people who have demonstrated failings in a particular area, but that all men don’t automatically deserve suspicion (some churches seem to get pretty genderd about “We offer a variety of support groups for women and accountability groups for men.”). I do think it’s good that you disclose the perspective that you come from…I hate to write off somebody’s thoughts based on their life, so to speak, but there’s a big difference between “Everyone should always abstain completely from alcohol” and “I abstain completely from alcohol because I’m an alcoholic.” The New Testament is pretty clear about the liberty / weaker brother issue.
Also, I think accountability works best in an accepting environment. In some of my past church environments, I’ve felt like if I admitted, say, to a pastor that I had struggled with viewing pornography or something, that he’d permanently declare me unfit for marriage and leadership.
This is a reply/correction to Arwen specifically.
Thinking on it, Sam, I can only imagine we’re talking past each other in that you’re seeing homosexuality as being intrinsically as problematic as battery.
Re-reading, I can see how I gave that impression, and I’m sorry. It’s not accurate, it’s not what I think, and it could be hurtful.
I chose the battery example because it’s real, and because it’s somewhere I’d warn others about something that I have not been perfect in myself. I’m not saying that homosexuality is equivalent to battery. All I’m saying is that IF YOU ARE HAGGARD, you might feel about homosexuality like I feel about anger; so far as he has seen and experienced, it is extremely dangerous and destructive. I do NOT think that; I can see why HE might.
I’m in the group of people Hugo mentions who would like to find a hermeneutic that allowed for gay marriage and remarriage, but haven’t managed to do so. But I don’t understand why those things are forbidden; I don’t see homosexuality as particularly harmful (addictive and exploitive behaviours around sex are harmful–those exist among heterosexuals too).
When something like this happens, I usually feel a mix of schadenfreude and empathy and pity and anger and all of that, all rolled up into one. I think it’s a mistake to imagine that one can only feel one of these things toward somebody like Haggard. It does give me great pleasure to see somebody who preaches hate (and will likely be allowed/encouraged to preach hate again, if Dobson has anything to say about it) implode. It also brings me great sadness, because he does carry such a terrible burden and likely has built up so much self-hatred that it’s hard to see how he could come to find any peace. It’s possible to empathize and at the same time find some joy in seeing somebody who has directed so much hate at others getting caught by the reality of his situation, although probably only briefly.
Since this was directed at me, I guess I’ll respond to it. I do feel very badly for his family because it isn’t their fault that the life they knew is crumbling around them, but I don’t feel much sympathy for a person who has preached hate and advised those in power on how to legislate that hate getting caught in his own lies. I’ll admit that I did get a bit of enjoyment when I heard about this. That wasn’t the only emotion I had, but it was definitely in there.
And like Jas said upthread, I don’t see that it matters that his bigotry and hatred was based on genuine religious beliefs instead of on something else. Bigotry is bigotry and I don’t see that religion qualifies as a special circumstance that gives it a pass.
The first time I saw Ted Haggard on TV, I immediately knew he was a flaming closet-case. His lisp and clownish expressions were a dead giveaway.
First Mark Foley, and now Ted haggard. Guess the G.O.P. is truly the Gay Old Party? What a bunch of raging, holier-than-thou hypocrites!!!
Lya Kahlo wrote:
“Are you saying that because I’m an atheist I can’t or wouldn’t say that someone religious was a good person or that I couldn’t or wouldn’t feel empathy for them? Sorry, but that’s bollocks.”
And earlier: “As an outsider who is constantly bombarded by the negative stereotype of the misgogynistic, bigot white Christian, I’d be very interested in seeing proof that this isn’t the sum and total of Jesus’s followers.”
Lya — you are obviously an enormously bright and passionate person but, with respect for those qualities, you typify the blindness on the left that the right is so often confronted with, sometimes rightly so. Fundamentalism is not restricted to those who use traditionally religious language. Far from it — as noted by your comments.
Although it’s easy to make grand, sweeping generalizations about the ill caused by “religion,” usually defined as Christianity, it is also true that within those traditions, at least those I know best, there is an explanation for that, sin — a consistent bending to ourselves that produces blindness — and the means to address that sin — a topic for another day.
Stephen
I think that forgiveness is something we do for ourselves, not for who we’re forgiving. We give them that because, although it is challenging, it is better for our character to be merciful.
Then again, I do wish everyone would be judged like they judge others (whether that’s a blessing or a curse).
Johnny, I think Ted Haggard has judged himself.
But judged himself for what? For his drug/sex issues, or for his hate?
I understand that everyone should be treated with love, but Ted Haggard is still in the “love thy enemy” column, NOT in the “prodigal son” column. Love the sinner, hate the sin, yes, of course. But Haggard is not only a sinner, but is sinning–the present progressive verb tense is important.
There’s a difference between bigotry based on fear and hatred and a principled theological conviction. The secular left needs to acknowledge that.
Hugo, I find you deeply inspiring and admirable. And, indeed, though I guess I qualify as “secular left”, I am ashamed of my first emotional reaction to Haggard’s misfortune.
But I think the principle you describe here is exactly wrong. It is, to me, more shameful to do something to another human being because a book or a person orders you to–Milgram experiment style–than because you have been tempted by genuine hate or fear of a person.
Hate and fear are wrong and evil. But they’re also understandable. You and your family are in Tribe X, some people in Tribe Y did bad things to someone in your tribe, so you fear and despise Tribe Y out of, you think, love for Tribe X especially those near and dear to you. It’s wrong, because ultimately all human beings and maybe all life are in the same Tribe. But, in Screwtape Letter terms, at least they hate someone far away rather than someone near that they have to deal with every day. It’s hate, but it’s a human, organic hate.
What I find far more horrifying is mechanical hate. The sort of hate you can derive from axioms by a chain of deductions, as though love, humanity, and the divine can be reduced to syntax and computation. I know, it is logically consistent with your assumptions, but at some point compassion requires you to go outside your assumptions and think “wait a minute, I know the smart guy in the white lab coat said these electric shocks are harmless, but they don’t look harmless to me”.
Occasionally older folks in my family (I’m relatively young) will let prejudiced ideas about other peoples slip from their tongues. It’s easy to judge them, but the fact is that they’ve lived through conflicts that I can’t imagine, suffered like I have never experienced, and lost people I have never known. From my comfortable standpoint here today I can see they are wrong–yet, in some sense, even their mistakes are worthy of respect.
But theological bigotry? There is nothing respectable about logically derived hate. I find it the most deeply appaling form of bigotry possible–whether it shows in a secular form in things like Soviet/Maoist Communism and eugenics, or in a Christian Fundamentalist form like thinking Jews and Gays deserve to be punished for all eternity in a lake of fire.
There IS a difference between bigotry that grows like an infection in wounds you received in the past, and bigotry that one cultivates by deduction and theory. The latter is sicker. An abused child who turns to crime is less worthy of blame than a philosopher who misreads Nietzche and turns to crime.
We should hate the bigotry, not the bigot, of course. But, as for me, I hate theological, mechanical bigortry more than the natural kind. I don’t think that’s my secular leftism talking, I think that’s my deepest humanity.
“but, with respect for those qualities, you typify the blindness on the left that the right is so often confronted with, sometimes rightly so. Fundamentalism is not restricted to those who use traditionally religious language. Far from it — as noted by your comments.”
How nice to start off the morning with a backhanded insult! Apparently, because I’m a “lefty” (which I’ve never labeled myself, btw) and a self-admitted atheist there’s little possibility of your objective about what I’ve written. Hugo’s point about our camps being incapable of treating each other well is apparently true. Unsurprising, though still disappointing.
First, did I say fundamentalism was restricted to the religious alone? Nope! See, the topic of the convo is one religious person’s hypocrisy. Silly me for not also including irrelevant, off topic comments about other types of non-republican and/or non-religious fundies. Didn’t seem particularly important. Second, the second statement you quoted from me is clearly a statement on how the religious are portrayed (or should I say, allow themselves to be portrayed?) in this country, not on my personal opinion of them. Apparently I haven’t made it sufficiently clear that I studied religion - Christianity and Judaism - for a total of seven years with their respective holymen each time with the intention to convert. I was once a believer. My statement to Mr. Bad (the second that you quoted) was to point out that sans proof, his assertion that the religious are whizbang fabulous humanitarians wasn’t exactly sturdy.
None of my statements were intended as an indictment against Christianity. It is absurd to paint all people who belong to a group with one stroke. You know, like claiming blindness typifies the left and that anything I said even remotely approached the level of bigoted drivel Haggard got paid well for.