Of sin and schadenfreude
So if you missed it, a prominent conservative evangelical preacher from Colorado, Ted Haggard was forced to resign from his church and confess to at least some of a homosexual escort’s allegations that he was paying for meth-fuelled gay sex while campaigning against same sex marriage. I don’t really want to add to the discussion of this. I actually don’t pay a lot of attention to US evangelicals so until the news came out, I didn’t really know who this guy was.
However, I had a couple of thoughts about this generally. It seems to me that if there is an element of the culture wars to be found in the worldwide christian church (and I believe that there is), it tends to show us all in the worst and least Christian light. For those that disagree with Haggard’s politics or theology, this dramatic downfall seems to be almost a gift. In one fell swoop everything he has ever preached, believed or created is completely undermined. His entire ministry will now forever be appended with an implied footnote - yeah, he grew this church from nothing to 14,000 people and had the ear of the president, but it turns out he was a fag, so what does that tell ya?
At once, he becomes the poster child for “those hypocritical conservatives” or, more broadly, “those hypocritical Christians”. However, none of this really logically follows in my view. A thriving sub-set of preachers and speakers on issues of sexual sin speak from a background of self-declared sexual struggle (a variation of the “I have conquered my evil thoughts” or “I have embraced that part of me that I once thought was sinful”). Obviously the guy is in crisis right now, but there doesn’t seem to me to be any reason why he couldn’t pursue his calling in some appropriately honest and forgiven way in the future.
As I have said, before the last week or so, I wouldn’t have known Ted Haggard if I tripped over him. With only the most casual glance over his political and theological positions, I am fairly confident that I would have disagreed with him on a whole range of issues. However I confess to being very uncomfortable with the implied breathless glee that comes with reports of yet another fallen moral crusader. I just can’t be pleased and self-righteous about the fact that a guy’s life has unravelled through his own sinfulness.
Similarly I can’t summon much shame and chagrin when people point out that leaders and speakers who influence my thoughts once wrote a couple of sentences which could be understood to be heretical, or that they once extended support to someone who it later turns out is not worthy of support.
I believe that in this “culture war” atmosphere, more and more we seem to take joy from the failings of others and use them as a reason to ignore or de-emphasise their point of view. Serious and major mistakes such as the ones I have been reading about appear to lend credence to the idea that smaller, even petty, shortcomings should similarly disentitle someone to express a political or theological opinion.
In Ben Elton’s book Blast from the Past he paints a picture of the US military in which the most important quality to acheive peace time promotion is to be innoffensive and free of controversy. The book suggests that in a climate which is anxious to stamp out scandal, the only people likely to assume positions of power are those that are too ineffectual to do the job. I wonder if the same can be said of moral leadership.
Some of my greatest spiritual heroes are people who have struggled with decisions about what is right or not. Sometimes they have made mistakes. But I always thought that this made them stronger. I like that Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrestled with his own conscience about whether to be involved in an assasination plot as an expression of his faith. I admire the fact that Oscar Romero was originally appointed ArchBishop of El Salvador because he had a record of turning a blind eye to injustice. I like that Luther made enemies and offended people. I like that one of the people I think most perfectly embodies the Christian ideal - Gandhi - was unashamedly not Christian.
However I wonder whether the church still has the ability to allow people to be flawed and in leadership. Our whole religion is based on the idea of redemption and forgiveness, but we allow so little of it with our leaders. I know that some of the people who comment here will jump to the situation of leaders who engage in spiritual abuse, but that is not my primary concern in this post.
My question is this. Does the global church and the public have the will and ability to embrace and support moral leaders with moral flaws? Or will we be unable to resist using those moral flaws to sink our opponents, and contribute to the elevation of the bland and inoffensive?
PS. I think that much of the conservative evangelical comment on this situation has been incredibly grace-filled, which is nice. The quotes from church members in the article I linked were lovely, but seemed to suggest that Haggard was no longer a part of the community - I hope that is not true, or at least that he and his family would continue to be pastorally cared for elsewhere.
December 8th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Strike Homer… the comment you agreed to included the phrase:
“A person who feels they are gay (because they have only ever been attracted to people of the same sex and never to the opposite sex)”….
If that’s not homosexual orientation… what is it?
December 8th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Toddy it might have eluded you but lust and anger are an activity that originate from the same place as the other two.
Janet so you think attraction is an orientation then you must sign up for orientation for adultery, lying, stealing, drinking …..
December 8th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
I apologise Homer if it as not you who called me a fornicator - someone on this blog did - but I accept your statement that it wasn’t you.
However I would like you to spell out your position - you know my marital status - am i married in God’s eyes in your opinion?
December 8th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
answers to todays problems with C3Po… the droids are running the show.
December 9th, 2006 at 7:13 am
I totally disagree Homer. Every human being alive is tempted to lie… not every human being alive is tempted to have sex with a member of the same sex. In fact, only a minority of people experience this. Sexual orientation is NOT the same thing as a having a sin nature that makes us want to lie, to put ourselves first, to be greedy. (pretty much universal expressions of a sinful nature).
I’m guessing at some stage in your life you’ve felt attracted to a married woman and had sexual thoughts about her… this doesn’t mean you have an “adulterous orientation”, it means you have a heterosexual orientation. In this case it was expressed toward someone “out of bounds” so you wisely didn’t act upon this attraction.
I’m also guessing the thought of being sexualy intimate with a man is not even slightly arousing to you… probably completely repulsive.
But imagine for a moment you are one of those people who have NEVER felt attracted to a woman (in fact you find even a passing thought of being intimate with a woman repulsive)… but only EVER felt sexually attracted to a man. This has been the real experience of a number of Signposters.
If that doesn’t describe a sexual orientation, what on earth does it describe? You’ve said yourself it’s not a sin if it’s not acted upon. Well, what is this phenomenon?
December 9th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Greg,
impossible for me to make that judgement as I am not in fellowship with you.
I would add being husband and wife in God’s eyes is your behaviour not a piece of paper.
Janet although I have found some woman attractive I have yet to find any I am attracted to and if I did then I would make damned sure not to associate with her.
December 9th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Good for you Homer.
This doesn’t really answer my other question. I would describe someone is only ever attracted to people of the same sex as having a homosexual orientation… even if they never act upon this impulse. What would you call it?
December 9th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Janet, it is called a sexual attraction.
you either give in to it or you fight it.
sin is sin is sin. don’t try and give a rationalisation for it.
December 9th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
How Homer and Ted Haggard are not that different………… neither is in touch with reality about homosexual orientation.
“The Rev. Ted Haggard this week formally begins his long journey toward recovery from a drugs-and-gay-sex scandal that forced him to step down as one of the most influential evangelical leaders in the nation.
Haggard, 50, has turned himself over to a team of counselors who are “assessing his spiritual, emotional and mental condition,” said the Rev. H.B. London, who is helping to guide Haggard through the process. London and two other pastors will then set out a rigorous “restoration plan” requiring Haggard to spend hours each week in counseling, Bible study, prayer and soul-baring talks — by phone or in person — with his mentors.
The team’s first task will be to push Haggard to acknowledge any addictions and come to an honest understanding of his sexuality. “Ted is not in touch with reality,” said the Rev. Mark Cowart, a friend. The mentors can confront Haggard or rebuke him forcefully; they may also ask him to submit to a polygraph test.
“Ted says he’s not a homosexual,” said the Rev. Mike Ware, a good friend. “The restoration team wants experts to evaluate that.”
From http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-haggard8dec08,0,7089766.story?coll=la-home-nation
December 9th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
“sin is sin is sin. don’t try and give a rationalisation for it.”
So Homer, is your (present) sin..as sinful as ‘homosexual sin’?
December 9th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Would you admit that those who only ever experience sexual attraction for members of the same sex face some unique issues within the church?
December 9th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
You might want to reflect on the Americal Psychological Associations views on this issue too… http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html
December 9th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
of course it is Lance.
the sin of homosexuality is not rated higher in the sinful stakes than any others it is just people such as yourself are giving rationalisation for it.
December 9th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
“sin is sin is sin. don’t try and give a rationalisation for it. ”
The context of the very long discussion between us has been celibate people who are attracted to members of the same sex… you have already said this is not a sin in itself, and you think such people are eligible for some areas of Christian leadership (provided they are of good character of course…. like any Christian leader should be).
So I repeat my last question:
“Would you admit that those who only ever experience sexual attraction for members of the same sex face some unique issues within the church?”
December 9th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
“So Homer, is your (present) sin..as sinful as ‘homosexual sin’?”
“of course it is Lance.”
Then you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.
You can’t have it both ways.
December 9th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
“You can’t have it both ways”
now that presents a whole new question.
December 10th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Janet,
no they merely are tempted like any other person is.
Lance,
Justification old chap. I am not saying my sins are not sins.
Therefore repentance leads to forgiveness.
you have it there in 1 cor 6:11
People can get over homosexuality and be members of the church and not even think up a rationalisation for their sin at all
December 10th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
:People can get over homosexuality ..”
What is there to ‘get over’ if homosexuality is not an orientation?
Anyway….1 cor 6..refers to ‘malakoi’..and ‘arsenekoitai’….not homosexuality……not that I desire to contradict conservatives’ ‘truthiness’.
December 10th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
We know salvation is never earned, otherwise it’s a debt God owes and not a free gift he bestows. It is the Holy Spirit that transforms us into the image of Christ. We’re here to help and restore, not judge and condemn, to love and forgive, not damage and reject.
I think Homer that you place enormous weight on your interpretation of the scriptures at the expense of people who truly love Christ and are dedicated to Him, your brothers and sisters in Him.
IMO, The passage you refer to is speaking of unbelievers, the unrighteous, “Such were some of you” not “Such are some of you”, yet it’s evident they are (present tense) involved in these things. “But you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.”
Justified by faith in Christ by accepting the free gift of God’s Grace. These passages are admonitions to endeavour not behave as you did before you received justification, not a condemnation.
Also, the scripture you’re using to condemn contains two difficult Greek idioms as Lance points out, “malokois” and “arsenokoitai” that in my opinion mean “a male prostitute” and “a user of male prostitutes”, hense his admonition against using prostitutes a few passages later. Have you studied this question?
But that aside, the immediate context is suing a brother before unbelievers. I’m interested if in the event of a car accident with another Christian, where you felt the other person was at fault, would you rather be wronged of several thousand dollars damage to your vehicle? Would you sue which is a matter of course these days, and if you did, would giving back the money you received be repentance? If you didn’t give the money back would you remain unforgiven in your opinion?
December 10th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
“But you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.”
Yes…I would have thought…that was a completed act at the cross for those who are justified by faith…not the law…but of course Homer prefers the conservative spin on the passage….not the gospel version.
December 10th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Halieus,
David Wright blew your theory away back in 1984. by the way you are missing the judgment of god in Romans1 not to mention the O/T.
In essence your ‘version’ has no consistency.
If I am in a car accident and the other is in the wrong the insurance company pays through insurance!
Lance
I am not talking about the law providing salvation as you very well know, however we are judged according to the law and it is Jesus’s act on the cross that bears our sins.
Unfortunately if you won’t or don’t recognise the sin which is black and white in this instance the cross is irrelevant because you have made it so.
December 10th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
“I am not talking about the law providing salvation as you very well know.”
That’s exactly what you’re talking about.
December 10th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Hey, I could be wrong about a lot of things, I don’t know quite what you think I’m wrong about but thank God mercy triumphs over judgement. I’ll err on the side of a merciful approach every time. I not familiar with David Wright but I know that most of Christendom is stuck in a hole over this issue so it doesn’t surprise me that someone you admire disagrees. Great theologians I admire from the past thought it was a good idea to tie prostitutes to a wheel and beat them to death. How could they get it so despicably, horrendously, mercilessly wrong? Hatred is a word that comes to mind.
Rom ch1 Those people who rejected the truth of God and exchanged His worship for idolatry and were given over to depravity. The judgement against the world for idolatry, immorality and all unrighteousness (vs29). Christ came to save sinners. How fortunate for us. We’re talking about those in Christ who love the true God and worship him and incidentally most gay people will tell you they didn’t exchange hetrosexuality for homosexuality through a process of knowing God and rejecting him and engaging in bizarre sex cult rituals. It’s not the rule for people who find that they’re attracted to members of the same gender.
Maybe you missed the warning of Ch2 Vs1 and the entire fourth chapter of Romans?
“Now to him who works, the reward is not counted as grace, but as debt. But to him who doesn’t work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. Even as David also pronounces blessing on the man to whom God counts righteousness apart from works,
“Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, Whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whom the Lord will by no means charge with sin.”" Romans 4:4-8
When your insurance company sues, you are suing them. So you’ve worked out a way to sue your brother without having to look at the immorality of it. Insurance companies in my opinion are usurers, thieves and liars who exploit through fear. Are you happy to do business with them? Do you know where the money goes?
I’m not insured at all, I don’t believe in it but I don’t judge anyone who is. I understand why they are. I have only the compulsory third party. This alone makes me a weirdo in Christian circles but I have my conscience toward God and they have theirs.
Will you take a brother before the courts rather than be wronged or ruin him without conscience because you believe you’re in the right? That’s the point. When we think we’ve done everything right before God we’re deceived, we need His mercy and grace till the day we die for our many sins.
If God showed us how many sins we have we’d probably drop dead from shock. We need to know that he paid the price for us.
I believe we all have error, we all fail in God’s eyes from living up to a perfect standard. We accept the Gift of God and rely on him to do the work in us.
We sometimes fail to see that the entire process of believing, understanding, having a change of heart on issues and doing good works are not the product of will and will worship but the work of God in us to will and to do right. There can be no boasting for the good we do and no condemnation for the error we commit. We examine ourselves as we journey with God and we all change in many ways, understand things we never knew and have a change of heart about things we’ve been involved in. We’ve become the project of a living God who has begun a process and will finish it in his way and in his time and with his power.
Paul credits his labours for Christ as “not I, but the Grace that is in me”, not “I’m alright, what’s the matter with you?”
Once we receive this Gift he will never let us go, no matter how far we drift, He will be justified and the justifier of those who believe in Jesus. Our eternal high priest lives forever, and His own blood seals the covenant of Grace through faith.
Our focus then can turn to “the whole of the law and the Prophets” to love God and love our neighbour unconditionally. If we love our neighbour and show mercy to our brothers and sisters we’re pursuing the will of God.
So what of sins we commit that we don’t think are sins, or are unaware of or dispute any wrong in doing them? We all differ in our ideas on many issues.
Homer said:
“Unfortunately if you won’t or don’t recognise the sin which is black and white in this instance the cross is irrelevant because you have made it so.”
In my opinion that’s blasphemous talk.
December 10th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
“Maybe you missed the warning of Ch2 Vs1 and the entire fourth chapter of Romans?”
Conservatives don’t recognise those parts of the bible.
December 10th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
That’s funny Lance:-) The unfunny thing is if we miss this as Christians we open ourselves to spiritual abuse from leaders who condemn others and point the finger at struggling believers. That causes enormous damage to people, a lot of pain and hurt when they could be growing in Grace and the Love of God.
December 10th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
So what about Haggard? Polygraph test? restoration team? Confrontation? Forceful rebuking? Expert evaluations? A bit Orwellian. Sounds like they suspect he’s criminally insane! Or they’re just putting on a big show to assure the faithful that they’re doing something important and “restoring” him whether he likes it or not. “ve vill restore you you svine, *slap*!”
Maybe he just needs a meek friend, forget about the fancy titles and big important position, leave it behind and get back to the basics. Spill it all out to a spiritual friend who’ll restore him before God. Just thinking out loud. By the time it gets to threatening polygraph tests I think they’re more interested in restoring the whole show than helping him in his journey with God. Do they think the Body of Christ will dissolve without him back in pride and power?
December 11th, 2006 at 7:22 am
When your insurance company sues, you are suing them. So you’ve worked out a way to sue your brother without having to look at the immorality of it. Insurance companies in my opinion are usurers, thieves and liars who exploit through fear. Are you happy to do business with them? Do you know where the money goes?
I’m not insured at all, I don’t believe in it but I don’t judge anyone who is. I understand why they are. I have only the compulsory third party. This alone makes me a weirdo in Christian circles but I have my conscience toward God and they have theirs.
I’ve been aware of other Christians who don;t have insurance - I’ve never understood why (and they’vbe been too self righteous to explain properly!) Yopu sound as if you ahve a reasably good grasp on reality Haleius - what’s teh go - why no insurance? and where do you think the money goes?
December 11th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Chapter 1 condems Gentiles and chapter 2 condemns Jews but this is irrelevant to your argument.
in Romans1:18 ff we see a picture of God’s wrath in a slightly differnt way. What Paul presents here is not the only to say about God’s wrath- even in Paul- but it contributes something very important. Not only is God’s wrath being revealed against all godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness but it manifests itself in such sins that is in God’s giving people over to want they want to do.
In other words instead of rebuking them in remedial judgement or curtailing their wickedness God gave them over to their shameful lusts and a depreaved mind.
you ought to read the differences between Corinth the greek city and Corinth the Roman colony. Notice the difference in reigious practices and law in particular homosexual activity.
Read 1 Cor 5. Here is an example of what I was writing about and the man is expelled from Church.
Better add Paul to your heretics list!
If a man is responsible for my car having to be repaired then I would expect a brother to take responsiblility for it.
If he doesn’t he is not much of a brother.
Insurance companies only sue each other when there is a dispute.
This is not a common practice.
December 11th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Q: Would you admit that those who only ever experience sexual attraction for members of the same sex face some unique issues within the church?
A: no they merely are tempted like any other person is.
Mmmm… imagine for a minute you are a 20 year old man raging with testosterone. If you are only attracted to women, your church teaches that this is a God given desire and that you should seek a godly woman to marry. (and in the interim to behave yourself). So you devote a lot of energy to seeking out the right partner.
Suppose you are only attracted to men. Your church teaches that these desires are unnatural and an abomination. That you can never act on these sexual desires but must commit yourself to lifelong celibacy (unless you do develop an attraction to the opposite sex, but this appears to you to be highly unlikely.) Now lifelong celibacy is a huge ask of anyone… especially a 20 year old raging with testosterone.
You don’t regard these as unique issues? Really? Think about it with some empathy for a moment!
It seems to me that it behoves churches who adopt the conservative line on homosexuality to engage in extraordinary pastoral care measures for those who feel they are gay. They are setting the discipleship bar way higher for those attracted to those of the same sex only than for those who only experience heterosexual attraction.
December 11th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
“Q: Would you admit that those who only ever experience sexual attraction for members of the same sex face some unique issues within the church?
A: no they merely are tempted like any other person is.”
But the only way the man could be ‘tempted’ in this way..is if they had a homosexual or bisexual orientation.
A heterosexual man (a man exclusively attracted to female/s) can’t be tempted in this area…(although many times I have wished that they were).
So by acknowledging ‘temptation’…you are acknowledging ‘orientation’.
‘Temptation’ is a weasel word or euphemism to play down the reality of orientation.