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 11th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
In the same way…I don’t experience a temptation or an orientation towards drinking alcohol …(although I lashed out at the Christmas party and had a rare beer and a cocktail) but I know of several people who do have that orientation towards alcohol..and I refuse to deny the reality of their orientation towards alcohol…just to do some smug self-satisfied legalistic point-scoring about their orientation …or to use your euphemism…’temptation’…. ..the way you proudly and haughtily do Homer.
December 11th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Is there any intelligent life on your planet Homer that we can deal with?
December 11th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Janet,
We find nothing in Corinthinians to suggest that turning away from Homosexulaity is any different from turning away from fornication, idolatory, adultery, stealing ,coveting, being drunk, extortioning etc.
You should attempt to show why this sin is different to the others.
Everyone is tempted, even Jesus was tempted but we are told to resist temptation.
Trying to spin that a particular sin is my ‘orientation’ is merely excusing my behaviour if I do it.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Greg the explorer said:
“Yopu sound as if you ahve a reasably good grasp on reality” Thanks Greg, many would disagree! Sorry to create an off topic but I’ll try to briefly address your question.
Firstly, I would never encourage anyone not to be insured, I never have done that. It’s a personal thing and I do have insurance that’s built into the system, in other words if I want to drive I must have the compulsory insurance. I was trying to illustrate to Homer how difficult it can be to have the right attitude toward God and his attitude is basically if there’s a dispute, “he’s not much of a brother then” in other words, bad luck for my brother, even if he’s ruined because of it! The opposite of what Paul says in the passage in question.
My opinion is that they use fear to manipulate people into protecting their possessions, I’ve tried to make a habit of not being attached to my possessions and not being afraid of losing them and not being afraid generally. In this I place myself in the hands of God. I often given away things I feel attached to. It’s an extreme view I know.
I also think they lie and do everything they can not to pay people when those people believed in good faith that their insurance would cover them. I learnt from bitter experience as a young man years ago what lengths they will go to to avoid paying what they’ve promised. So I’m also biased from experience. I think the whole way they do business is a scam.
Also, where the money goes. Companies we contribute to often minimise costs and maximise profits through inequitable treatment of employees while paying obscene bonuses to company heads. They’re often tied to companies that have unsatisfactory environmental and ethical policies, especially those leading to the abuse of human rights overseas to satisfy shareholders, like so many large companies competing in a Global market. Shareholders, policyholders and consumers share in the responsibility.
I’m not an expert on financial institutions but these are a few of my thoughts on the issue. Way, way off topic but I hope this shows a little of where I’m coming from.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
“Trying to spin that a particular sin is my ‘orientation’ is merely excusing my behaviour if I do it.”
So Homer, are you suggesting I shouldn’t cut you any slack for your ‘heartless bastard’ orientation?
Ok, done.
December 11th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Thanks Halieius = my belieg that you have a reasonable grasp on reality is maintained
December 11th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Let me just replay my last post:
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.
If you cannot see ANY difference between these two scenarios, Homer, I officially give up dialogue with you on this topic.
I think the bible does address homosexual acts (it was quite common among ancient Greeks for married men to practice homosexuality with one another) but I think the bible doesn’t really address the pastoral care of those who are only attracted to those of the same sex… just as it does not directly address pastoral care of those who are depressed, or who have anxiety disorders. But social science research does give us information about these areas where the bible is silent. (I’m not trying to equate these three things… I’m just making the point that social and psychological research complement our theological endeavour, and that some things that really exist aren’t articulated in the bible. It doesn’t mean they’re not valid!)
What about the depressed? Do you just say that because the bible doesn’t use this word it doesn’t really exist, that depression is a weasel word, and the depressed should just buck up, obey God, and get over it?
Simplistic thinking on complex issues doesn’t do much good to anyone.
Oh well… noone can say I didn’t give this a red-hot go.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I am not saying no pastoral care is involved what I am saying is that the bible shows that pastoral care is no different to any other sin.
I have a friend although not a christian, who says he cannot help himself with woman. On this basis he would argue he has an orientation towards adultery. It is an excuse. No more no less.
No person can go anywhere until they understnd they can live the way they want to or that God wants us to.
By the way Janet you seem to assume it is easy for a man to marry a godly woman. I would suggest you are being optimistic in this.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
I have a friend…no I don’t…I’m showing off…sorry everyone
December 11th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
“….what I am saying is that the bible shows that pastoral care is no different to any other sin…..”
That’s a bizarre sentence….even by Homer’s wacky standards.
December 11th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
The bible does not say that homosexuality or temptation towards it needs any more pastoral care than other sin.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
The bible does not say that those experiencing depression need more pastoral care than those who do not experience depression. But common sense and compassion indicate that they do.
My point is that the bible doesn’t say a lot of things.
The bible doesn’t say that you need insurance. The bible doesn’t say anything about masturbation. The bible doesn’t say anything about John Howard’s policies in Iraq. The bible doesn’t say anything about penecillin. The bible doesn’t say anything about post-traumatic stress disorder. The bible doesn’t say anything about how to behave on a blog. We have to use biblical principles, informed by the best research we have on hand, to make decisions about all sorts of things.
December 11th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
what is the difference between a man being sexually attracted towards a woman or a man if he is single?
He either accepts what God says or he doesn’t.
Getting him to accept it is part of pastoral care as far as I can see
December 11th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
You don’t think accepting lifelong celibacy is a special pastoral care issue?
December 11th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
“The bible does not say that homosexuality or temptation towards it needs any more pastoral care than other sin.”
The bible doesn’t say we should have hospitals, pay our electricity bills or recharge our phone batteries….so obviously we shouldn’t worry about it.
What a fucking idiot you are Homer.
December 11th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
“I am not saying no pastoral care is involved what I am saying is that the bible shows that pastoral care is no different to any other sin.”
You missed the point that you (accidentally) said that …’pastoral care [is a sin]….no different to any other sin…
But getting back to this adultery orientation point.
I think everyone would be better off if men (or women) could admit that they had an adultery orientation.
I have known people who have had an adultery orientation…and in one case…cost them their marriage…(didn’t cost them their eligibility to run a Christian organisation..which it would have cost them if they’d admitted to homosexual adultery…but I digress…)
Part of their ‘recovery’….was going through some Sy Rogers teaching..and acknowledging their orientation towards adultery…and taking steps that would prevent them being in a place of temptation..(no solo interstate business trips…no establishing intimate friendships with females interstate..etc)..
And if an orientation towards adultery could be acknowledged…then it’s much more fair on their (prospective/)wife or husband…who can then make an informed choice as to whether he/she should risk marrying this slimeball.
Homer’s world revolves around nobody acknowledging any weakness, temptation or sin in their life…and then rigidly applying the law…if someone fails to jump through all the hoops…(he still hasn’t renounced his Bonking Court proposal..to prosecute anyone who has sex outside of marriage.)
If someone has an adultery orientation ….so what?
It doesn’t make them any less of a shareholder in the Kingdom of Heaven… and if the orientation is acknowledged…then there’s a better prospect of controlling it…in the same way that if you acknowledge you’re gay…then you can constructively deal with the reality.
Ditto for child abusers.
You wouldn’t stop all child abuse..because many abusers are narcissistic sociopaths…….but imagine how many children would be prevented from being abused….if those adults who crossed a line they never thought they would cross…could openly admit they have the orientation towards sexual interest in children….and then work through options for dealing with it….rather than the present ludicrous situation..where the only way it’s being dealt with is through the courts..after the event.
The sooner we recognise the reality of orientations…of all types…the better….and the sooner we stop taking notice of the Homers of this world who live in an alternate reality that denies reality…the better.
December 11th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Lance, you are a shocking man… I think that those sexually attracted to children should receive identical pastoral care to those who are sexually attracted to members of the same sex, who should receive identical pastoral care to heterosexual males who are having trouble finding a godly wife… there is simply no biblical justification for doing otherwise.
December 11th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
I dont mean to sound patronising Lance, but I really respect how far you’ve come in dealing with all this stuff.
December 11th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
‘there is simply no biblical justification for doing otherwise.’
Well, I’d argue Paul had a particular pastoral interest in the poor. And one might want to push this principle into having a particular pastoral interest in those who have poverty in self control. I think it makes sense to put more effort where more effort is required.
December 11th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
I agree… but I’m pretending to be Homer out of a sense of existential despair.
December 11th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
*taps sarcasm detector*
Oh. Ok.
December 11th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Desperately trying another tack…
Homer… do you believe in ANY specialist ministries? Perhaps a women’s group? A kids club? Might an Alcoholics Anonymous group meet at your church?
Is specialised pastoral care ever OK?
December 11th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
“I’m pretending to be Homer out of a sense of existential despair.”
You need to leave random words out of your sentences….quote 1 Cor 5..even if the topic at hand is cookery or basket-weaving……….and tell me to cogitate.
BTW…you’ll all be pleased to know I got (mockingly) told off by my News Director for using dots……all the time…..between phrases….in my news copy…..
December 11th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Thanks guys .. (sorry for the dots!) you actually had me laughing out loud about the sin of pastoral care!! Trouble is I have known Homeresque types who actually thought it was a sin, because it meant you were being too soft on people who really needed to just pull up their socks and repent!! (Tricky for us barefoot types)
Greg, can we all put in together and get you a friend for Christmas?
Lance, #616 was brilliant. Orientation is not an excuse for sin, it’s a recognition of particular areas of struggle in our lives, which are different for different people. And we need to order our lives on the basis of reality. I think you expressed it all really clearly.
December 11th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Hey Greg, I have a spare friend from my Hillsong days if you’re interested. I can assure you that he’s ‘awesome’.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
“Orientation is not an excuse for sin, it’s a recognition of particular areas of struggle in our lives, which are different for different people. And we need to order our lives on the basis of reality.”
That’s all it is.
It’s not a value judgement on the rights or wrongs of it…it’s just a recognition of reality..the first step towards dealing with the reality of that…umm…reality.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
And you can make the value judgements later, where appropriate and after everyone’s had a chance to think it through.
December 11th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Homer,
using a more literalist interpretaion of the Bible … should we or should we not have Christmas trees in our Houses?
See: Jeremiah 10:1
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=30&chapter=10&verse=1&version=65&context=verse
December 12th, 2006 at 1:34 am
Would Orientation be another word for iniquity?
Psalms 38:18 - For I will declare mine iniquity; I will be sorry for my sin.
greek word for iniquity here is- `avon# meaning - perversity, depravity, iniquity, guilt or punishment of iniquity.
perversity, depravity, can be the hearts desire to sin in a certain way. Some people have the desire to steal - though they may not fulfill this desire, it is something they have a bend to do. So though their actions may not always be in line with their desire i.e. they do not do it - it is something they have to watch themselves with.
So david says -”I will declare mine iniquity” that sounds like post 626 in old english
December 12th, 2006 at 9:06 am
I’m not Lance akevin… but I think not. This sounds too much like heterosexuals have a holy orientation and homosexuals have an iniquitious orientation.
I see sexual orientation in morally neutral terms… you can be a heterosexaul sleaze bag and a holy homosexual and vice versa… even Homer acknowledges sin involves an action.
I suppose you could say that every human being has a “sinful orientation”, a sin nature, which is expressed differently by those with different temperaments (one person will have a fiery and destructive temper, another might be cold and indifferent… equally sinners, but expressing their sinfulness differently)
However, as sexual orientation has come to have a very particular meaning, I don’t think it applies in the context… it’s a word better left out of a discussion of sinfulness.
In my understanding paedophilia is an expression of pathology… extreme emotional immaturity.
On the other hand, there’s evidence many homosexuals are “born” that way… their hormones and brains are wired differently to heterosexuals. They can be perfectly healthy individuals from a psychological viewpoint. Some homosexuals they may have a hormonal disposition that might mean they could “swing both ways”, but emotional neglect or early sexual experience or abuse has tipped them toward homosexuality… these are probably the much vaunted “Sy Rogers” types who actually can swing back the other way. This shouldn’t be touted as a universal truth… that all homosexuals can be “fixed” just like Sy Rogers. That’s nonsense.
From the point of view of the gay individual, whether your orientation was born or made or a bit of both doesn’t really make much difference. The issue is understanding your reality and knowing what to do about it.
If a gay person is not a Christian, the church has absolutely no business telling them what they can and cannot do… the church needs to witness the love of Christ and the grace of the gospel.
The majority of Christians would probably express the view that faithful discipleship for committed Christian homosexuals involves lifelong celibacy… which is a huge thing. An appropriate pastoral response involves exceptional love and support and being embraced by families within the church community. If that is the call, it involves considerable effort to be the family of God for that person in an extraordinary way.
Some Christians would say that homosexual orientation is a “silent” topic of the bible, which speaks against homosexual cultic acts in general, but does not address the orientation question. They would say it is reasonable to support “gay marriage”, which is analogous to the covenantal exclusive relationship of heterosexual marriage.
No one is advocating “root anything that moves” as an act of faithful discipleship… this is no good for our physical, emotional or spiritual health… everyone needs to exercise sexual self control.
Anyway, that’s my thoughts on the topic… I don’t claim to be an expert, so I’m willing to stand corrected on any of this rant.