Discussion:
Ted Haggard's "Sin"
(too old to reply)
* irenic *
2006-12-01 03:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Sightings 11/30/06

Ted Haggard's "Sin" -- Jon Pahl

Now that some of the dust has settled from the unfortunate fall of
evangelical leader Ted Haggard -- who has confessed to being a "sinner" to
his congregation -- we can achieve some longer-range perspective on what it
all means.

I agree with Martin Marty that Rev. Haggard, along with his family and all
those involved in this scandal, deserves compassion, and one wishes him
peace (see "Considering Ted Haggard's Plight," Sightings, November 6). But
Haggard's letter to his church reveals a truncated understanding of sin and
a failure to recognize how the movement he led as President of the National
Association of Evangelicals is in part responsible for his plight.

Like most evangelicals, Haggard is the theological heir of Saint Augustine,
finding sin in pride and lust. Unlike Augustine, however, Haggard sees
pride and lust as personal attributes. "I alone am responsible," he asserts
in his letter. "I created this entire situation," he reiterates. And yet a
third time he says, "It was created 100 percent by me."

Augustine has a more sophisticated understanding of the origins of sinful
desire. In his Confessions, he reveals how sin arises from within a social
nexus. In the famous account in Book 2, he describes stealing a bunch of
pears with a gang of his friends. He did this not because he was hungry,
but because it was transgressive. He and his friends constructed a foul
desire and then he acted on it.

A similar dynamic can be observed among many conservative evangelicals with
regard to homosexuality. By targeting gay sex as "sin," the religious right
has mobilized "values voters." But by scapegoating homosexuality, they draw
attention to it as "temptation." As Haggard puts it: "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." It is as if the religious right's culture war has played
out in Ted Haggard's soul. As an individual willing to carry the blame as
a "sinner," he acted out the scapegoating that has in part organized power
for the movement he led.

In its mild form, this scapegoating of homosexuals has been expressed in
"Defense of Marriage" laws, one of which passed in the recent elections in
Colorado. Haggard was a vocal supporter of these laws. Such tension between
his public person and his private behavior must have been excruciating. A
more extreme form of this logic has led to movements like that of the Rev.
Fred Phelps's "God Hates Fags" campaign. Passion for "purity" against
homosexual desire has been used to rally evangelical righteousness, and to
round up voters.

Consequently, those who feel homosexual desire and who are also persuaded by
the logic of a Phelps will likely bear a degree of self-hatred that leads to
isolation and repression. Haggard would appear to be in such a position.
"For extended periods of time," Haggard writes, "I would enjoy victory and
rejoice in freedom. Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was
gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and
experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach."

But what Haggard does not seem to recognize, as Augustine did, is how his
desires were in part the result of what he believed and taught. Augustine
demonstrates that a dirty desire is desirable precisely because it is dirty.
Similarly, Haggard, I believe, was actually possessed by the social
constructions of the very movement he led. He suggests as much when he
reveals that "when I stopped communicating about my problems, the darkness
increased and finally dominated me." But a problem can only dominate one in
this way when it is constructed as a problem. If, say, gay sex were
considered good within a committed, loving, and publicly recognized
relationship, it would not pose a moral threat.

According to Augustine, an individual either participates in God, who is
gracious and life-fulfilling love, or one falls into lust, which is prideful
assertion of one's desires to dominate. The religious right has had plenty
of experience with domination lately. It is more than a little disturbing,
then, that Haggard, in his letter, imagines that he will be "healed" when
his "sins" are "dealt with harshly," and when, with the "oversight" of
leading anti-gay pastors Dr. James Dobson, Jack Hayford, and Tommy Barnett,
he is "disciplined." (Dobson has since withdrawn from the counseling team.)

It is unlikely that those in this group will actually confess their
collective responsibility for Haggard's sins. To do so, they would have to
acknowledge the systemic violence they have accepted and promoted by
scapegoating homosexuals. Policies produce practices, and when a taboo is
constructed, it invariably becomes a temptation.

Prior to his fall, Haggard had been an admirably clear voice for broadening
evangelical activism to include support for environmental causes and
attention to poverty as a religious issue. One might now hope that
evangelicals and others continue to learn through his example -- by
recognizing with Augustine how desire is rooted in a social nexus.

References:

The full text of Ted Haggard's letter is available at the Colorado Springs
Gazette: http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1326184&secid=1.

Jon Pahl is Professor of the History of Christianity in North America at the
Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, and a Fellow in the Center
for the Study of Religion at Princeton University.

----------

The current Religion and Culture Web Forum features "Justification and
Truth, Relativism and Pragmatism" by Daniel A. Arnold. To read this
article, please visit:
http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/webforum/index.shtml.

----------

Sightings comes from the <http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/>Martin Marty
Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Attribution

Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author
of the column, Sightings, and the Martin Marty Center at the University of
Chicago Divinity School.
--
Shalom! Rowland Croucher

'It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so' (Mark Twain)

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 18,400 articles/ 4000 humour
Burkladies
2006-12-05 02:48:43 UTC
Permalink
All said, I agree with your post. In addition I consider Mr. Haggard
to full of his own delusions. His teachings as an evangical leader
reflect his delusions, instead of Christ as I know Christ. Haggard was
good at quoting a jew, Paul, to back his delusional agendas. Those who
cry wolf loudest usually have an agenda with in and a delusion to back
up with the word. In the mean time his wife and kids will be taken
care of.
Even with his works, Haggard never struck me as a prophet. A christian
maybe. As there are many ways in life to be christian. With or
without sin. Our human nature is dysfunctional, so sin happens no
matter what we do to contain our dysfunction. Haggard is the same.
I ask, Did he trade one delusion for another? I think so.

BB Lady
Post by * irenic *
Sightings 11/30/06
Ted Haggard's "Sin" -- Jon Pahl
Now that some of the dust has settled from the unfortunate fall of
evangelical leader Ted Haggard -- who has confessed to being a "sinner" to
his congregation -- we can achieve some longer-range perspective on what it
all means.
...
Post by * irenic *
Augustine has a more sophisticated understanding of the origins of sinful
desire. In his Confessions, he reveals how sin arises from within a social
nexus. In the famous account in Book 2, he describes stealing a bunch of
pears with a gang of his friends. He did this not because he was hungry,
but because it was transgressive. He and his friends constructed a foul
desire and then he acted on it.
...
Post by * irenic *
In its mild form, this scapegoating of homosexuals has been expressed in
"Defense of Marriage" laws, one of which passed in the recent elections in
...>
Post by * irenic *
But what Haggard does not seem to recognize, as Augustine did, is how his
desires were in part the result of what he believed and taught. Augustine
demonstrates that a dirty desire is desirable precisely because it is dirty.
Similarly, Haggard, I believe, was actually possessed by the social
constructions of the very movement he led. He suggests as much when he
...
Post by * irenic *
It is unlikely that those in this group will actually confess their
collective responsibility for Haggard's sins. To do so, they would have to
Catherine Hampton
2006-12-06 04:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Burkladies wrote:

<snip>
Post by * irenic *
Haggard was
good at quoting a jew, Paul, to back his delusional agendas.
Am I the only one who sees a GREAT BIG FLASHING NEON SIGN in this
"throwaway" comment? :/ That reads to me like the words of someone
who hates Jews, regardless of what they actually believe or teach.
The words "racism," "bigotry," and "antisemitism," get overused and
misused a lot online, but they still mean something, and they all
seem to me to apply to the comment I quote above.

I'm Christian, not Jewish, but I believe in and follow someone who
was a Jew while alive on this earth. So do all Christians. And
while I could scarcely be further from Ted Haggard's theological
views (I'm not evangelical or even Protestant), and probably even
further from his political views, you're going to have to come up
with a better reason for me to dismiss what he has to say than that
he quotes frequently from "a jew", the Jew in question being St.
Paul of Tarsus.

Someone who quotes from that particular Jew will get my respectful
attention, at least unless and until I figure out that they were
misquoting him. Ditto Moses the Lawgiver, King David, the prophets,
and not a few Jews who wrote in the Christian era. (Viktor Frankl's
"Man's Search For Meaning," is one such book -- a *wonderful* work
by a concentration camp survivor.)

I think somebody needs to rethink his or her attitudes about Jews.
--
Catherine Hampton <***@spambouncer.org>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
Matthew Johnson
2006-12-08 01:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Catherine Hampton
<snip>
Post by * irenic *
Haggard was
good at quoting a jew, Paul, to back his delusional agendas.
Am I the only one who sees a GREAT BIG FLASHING NEON SIGN in this
"throwaway" comment? :/
No, you are not. I see it too. But I knew I could count on others to refute this
shameless and false attack on the Jewish roots of Christianity. You certainly
did not disappoint me;)

[snip]
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Catherine Hampton
2006-12-09 02:29:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Catherine Hampton
<snip>
Post by * irenic *
Haggard was
good at quoting a jew, Paul, to back his delusional agendas.
Am I the only one who sees a GREAT BIG FLASHING NEON SIGN in this
"throwaway" comment? :/
No, you are not. I see it too. But I knew I could count on others to refute this
shameless and false attack on the Jewish roots of Christianity. You certainly
did not disappoint me;)
[snip]
Glad to hear I didn't. ;) However, as attacks on the Jewish roots
of Christianity go, that one hardly required refuting. It wasn't as
if the attacker actually posted a real attack, with real reasons and
real arguments. He (or she) simply posted a comment that implied
that everyone (or most people) *knew* that Christianity didn't come
out of Judaism.

Of course, most of us know no such thing, probably because
Christianity did come out of Judaism and nobody familiar with the
history of it (be they Christian or not) would dispute that for a
second.

BTW, Matthew, I don't have a current email address for you. Email
me, please, so I can update my address book. There's news on the
private front too. ;)
--
Catherine Hampton <***@spambouncer.org>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
Personal Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
l***@hotmail.com
2006-12-08 01:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by * irenic *
Like most evangelicals, Haggard is the theological heir of Saint Augustine,
finding sin in pride and lust.
Actually, more an heir of Pauline thought.
Post by * irenic *
Unlike Augustine, however, Haggard sees
pride and lust as personal attributes. "I alone am responsible," he asserts
in his letter. "I created this entire situation," he reiterates. And yet a
third time he says, "It was created 100 percent by me."
This is the nature of true repentance. You seem to advocate the new
ethic proscribed in most public schools, that which never holds one
personally accountable to anything. It is always viewed as being
determined by either something outside of man or something within
him which he inherited.
SNIP
Post by * irenic *
A similar dynamic can be observed among many conservative evangelicals with
regard to homosexuality. By targeting gay sex as "sin," the religious right
has mobilized "values voters." But by scapegoating homosexuality, they draw
attention to it as "temptation."
All testing is ultimately from God while all temptation is ultimately
from Satan.
(Js 1) But this does not discount that man is still held accountable
for his
sin(s) which in turn expresses the fact that God views man as being
responsible. If man is responsible then he is also necessarily
accountable.
Post by * irenic *
As Haggard puts it: "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." It is as if the religious right's culture war has played
out in Ted Haggard's soul. As an individual willing to carry the blame as
a "sinner," he acted out the scapegoating that has in part organized power
for the movement he led.
How is Haggard's confession different from Paul's in Rom 7?
Post by * irenic *
In its mild form, this scapegoating of homosexuals has been expressed in
"Defense of Marriage" laws, one of which passed in the recent elections in
Colorado. Haggard was a vocal supporter of these laws. Such tension between
his public person and his private behavior must have been excruciating.
Again, Rom 7. This is the common Christian experience. He still sins
yet he hates the fact that he does so. There is nothing inconsistent
with
what you have mentioned above with the Biblical perspective of living
the
Christian life. It is the more sensitive Christian, feeling the hand
of God,
who seeks restraint, thus the prayer, "Lord I am not willing but I am
willing
to be made willing." So to press for the passage of laws is nothing
less
than a sinners cry for help. The Christian who has a problem with
pornography and has a porno shop set up right next door to him, though
he secretly desires or even reads porno, is yet in keeping with his new
self to seek that the community remove the blight of the shop next to
him.
Post by * irenic *
A
more extreme form of this logic has led to movements like that of the Rev.
Fred Phelps's "God Hates Fags" campaign. Passion for "purity" against
homosexual desire has been used to rally evangelical righteousness, and to
round up voters.
Evangelicals have for a long time used the axiom, "God hates the sin
but
loves the sinner." This is true but it is not always true. Sometimes
God
does most certainly hate the sinner as well. And contrary to the naive
majority, the wrath of God and the love of God are NOT mutually
exclusive
but are mutually inclusive. For the wrath of God rises up out from His
love and mercy. If God's love is not reciprocated, if it is turned
aide, His
jealousy burns and finds final expression in the out pouring of His
wrath.

The Great Complaint of God is but one. It is namely that the people
have forgotten Him and have turned from Him all the while despising
His love for them.

Let it also be noted that apart from sin, the miracle of sola gratia on
which not only our salvation but God's glory rests is never revealed.
Post by * irenic *
Consequently, those who feel homosexual desire and who are also persuaded by
the logic of a Phelps will likely bear a degree of self-hatred that leads to
isolation and repression.
It is the loathing of sin that yet resides within us that marks our
being truly born again. It is the holy man, not the depraved
unregenerate,
who most hates himself in that he yet finds within him the desire to
sin. Personally, THIS is what I think Paul was referring to when he
spoke of the "thorn in the flesh." More probably, after twice having
been
translated up into heaven and having envisioned Holiness on His
throne, having come back to earth and still having to wrestle with sin,
why wouldn't he plead with God to remove the "thorn of the flesh?"

This is healthy. THis is the mature Christian.
Post by * irenic *
Haggard would appear to be in such a position.
"For extended periods of time," Haggard writes, "I would enjoy victory and
rejoice in freedom. Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was
gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and
experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach."
Again, the normal Christian life. And what does it accomplish? Why
would
a holy God permit it to remain in the lives of the unregenerate? Does
the
thought of humility come to mind? Who is more merciful and more
considerate of others than the Christian who is struggling with sin in
his
life? And truth be told, the more "holy" we become, when we clear the
slate of all those "big" sins, we will find a plethora of "small" sins
which
will almost make us wish for only having to wrestle with the "big"
sins.
How many personal testimonies have we heard from those who have
been "snatched up" out of horrible, truly deplorable sinful life styles
only to experientially realize that often it is the case that where the
more
sin is forgiven the more glory is given to God. "Amazing Grace" was
written by a man who captured men, women and children and stuffed
them in the hold of his ship and brought them to America to be
trafficked like animals!
Post by * irenic *
But what Haggard does not seem to recognize, as Augustine did, is how his
desires were in part the result of what he believed and taught. Augustine
demonstrates that a dirty desire is desirable precisely because it is dirty.
Similarly, Haggard, I believe, was actually possessed by the social
constructions of the very movement he led. He suggests as much when he
reveals that "when I stopped communicating about my problems, the darkness
increased and finally dominated me." But a problem can only dominate one in
this way when it is constructed as a problem. If, say, gay sex were
considered good within a committed, loving, and publicly recognized
relationship, it would not pose a moral threat.
Ethical absolutes do not find their validity in the sociol mores of the
day.
They always and only find their roots in God and His revelation. You
are preaching determinism throughout this post. Your presuppositional
base operates not out of a Biblical worldview, but a humanistic one.
You
judge as if you have no personal experience in the Rom 7 dilemma. Why
is that?
Post by * irenic *
According to Augustine, an individual either participates in God, who is
gracious and life-fulfilling love, or one falls into lust, which is prideful
assertion of one's desires to dominate.
Again, you are humanistic in your presuppositions. It is only by grace
are we delivered from not only our sin, but our sins as well.
Certainly
the internal preceeds the external and the call for the "renewing of
your minds" presupposes this fact. But sheer human will power will
never gain one once of victory from the sin that lies within. This is
the Pauline resolve of Rom 7. It is ONLY by means of the Spirit that
victory is won.
SNIP
Post by * irenic *
One might now hope that
evangelicals and others continue to learn through his example -- by
recognizing with Augustine how desire is rooted in a social nexus.
And this is the problem I have with MM. He is a humanist. You
have swallowed his "gospel which is no gospel" hook line and sinker.
You need to get back into the Word and find the true Truth of the
nature and experience of sin in the life of the believer.
Loading...