Thursday, November 30, 2006

Ted Haggard's "Sin"

This article comes from the 11/30/06 publication of Sightings from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School. It adds an interesting historical perspective to the situation.

Ted Haggard's "Sin" (by 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.
----------
Submissions policy
Sightings welcomes submissions of 500 to 750 words in length that seek to illuminate and interpret the forces of faith in a pluralist society. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. The editor also encourages new approaches to issues related to religion and public life.

Contact information
Please send all inquiries, comments, and submissions to Jeremy Biles, managing editor of Sightings, at sightings-admin@listhost.uchicago.edu. Subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage your subscription at the Sightings subscription page.

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

My first reaction was, "that's the biggest bunch of hogwash I've ever heard!".

Naturally, I assumed that I was probably not astute enough to comprehend the full import of what was being discussed in Pahl's article.

So, I went back and read it 3 more times. I also looked up the passage from St. Augustine cited in the article, reviewed it, and several others, in Book II of "Confessions".

After much deliberation my conclusion is: "What a bunch of hogwash!"

No offense, JMHO. :-)

Peace,
Felicia Swavely

11/30/2006 8:27 PM  
Blogger Brent C Sleasman said...

Felicia,

There's no need to worry about offending me - I didn't write the article! I received it by email today and thought it would stimulate some interesting discussion. I am always drawn to those who address current topics in light of past voices - in this case St. Augustine.

For the sake of conversation, what specific points are most offensive to you?

Thanks!

Brent

11/30/2006 9:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Pastor Brent:
"Offensive" isn't really the word I'd choose---more like "rationalization" for sin.

Pahl states: "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."

Huh?! Last time I checked pride and lust ARE sins. I don't equate taking responsibility for ones' sins ( "I alone am responsible")with seeing those sins as "personal attributes".

Pahl states: "In his Confessions, he reveals how sin arises from within a social nexus."

Compare Pahl's interpretation of Augustine with this passage, which comes just before the "pear tree" incident:


2. "But what was it that I delighted in save to love and to be beloved? But I held it not in moderation, mind to mind, the bright path of friendship, but out of the dark concupiscence of the flesh and the effervescence of youth exhalations came forth which obscured and overcast my heart, so that I was unable to discern pure affection from unholy desire. Both boiled confusedly within me, and dragged away my unstable youth into the rough places of unchaste desires, and plunged me into a gulf of infamy. Thy anger had overshadowed me, and I knew it not. I was become deaf by the rattling of the chains of my mortality, the punishment for my soul's pride; and I wandered farther from Thee, and Thou didst "suffer"' me; and I was tossed to and fro, and wasted, and poured out, and boiled over in my fornications, and Thou didst hold Thy peace, O Thou my tardy joy! Thou then didst hold Thy peace, and I wandered still farther from Thee, into more and more barren seed-plots of sorrows, with proud dejection and restless lassitude."
******************************

Does that really sound like Augustine is blaming society for his lust???? Is he claiming that if only Christianity hadn't called lust a sin--- he'd be right with God???! I think not!

Augustine is rightly grieved for committing impure acts, out of selfish lust, against a pure and holy God.

Let's call sin...sin.

If I, as a married woman, have an affair, can I blame the evangelicals? "Gee, if only those holy rollers hadn't made having an affair so dirty I'd feel fine about myself."

Pahl writes: "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."

*******************************
St. Augustine laments: "Did I wish, if only by artifice, to act contrary to Thy law, because by power I could not, so that, being a captive, I might imitate an imperfect liberty by doing with impunity things which I was not allowed to do, in obscured likeness of Thy omnipotency? Behold this servant of Thine, fleeing from his Lord, and following a shadow! O rottenness! O monstrosity of life and profundity of death! Could I like that which was unlawful only because it was unlawful? "
***************************
He does not imply that he sought after sin because the Church deemed it dirty. Augustine clearly states that he sought to defy GOD'S OWN LAW by his actions.

Can I justify my sinful acts as Pahl does?:
"Policies produce practices, and when a taboo is constructed, it invariably becomes a temptation."

Have we forgotten Romans 7???

21
"So, then, I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand.
22
For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self,
23
but I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind, taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
24
Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body?
****************************

C'mon! ---- I AM A SINNER. I SIN. IT IS MY PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. EVERY TIME I AM FACED WITH TEMPTATION I CHOOSE TO FOLLOW JESUS CHRIST OR I CHOOSE TO FOLLOW SATAN.

I can't try to foist that blame elsewhere...
I Cor. 10:12-13 "Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall.

No trial has come to you but what is human. God is faithful and will not let you be tried beyond your strength; but with the trial he will also provide a way out, so that you may be able to bear it."

***************************

I CAN choose NOT to sin. God promises me a way out. To deny that is to deny our faith.

Yet, I DO feel nothing but sympathy for Ted Haggard--he must be a tormented man. The failing here was not calling sin..sin. But rather not providing a way for a brother to feel comfortable to come to his fellow pastors for support to overcome the temptation.

Sorry for the rant. I didn't plan to go beyond my first post. But you did ask. Sorry, ain't ya? ;-)

Peace,
Felicia Swavely

11/30/2006 10:20 PM  
Blogger Mike Clawson said...

Felicia,

Are there any things that you don't consider to be sinful but that many other Christians around you do? (For example, I don't think there is anything wrong with drinking alcohol in moderation. However, I grew up in a religious environment where drinking was absolutely taboo, always sinful.)

If someone comes to you and says they are struggling with that "sin", and you don't think it's really sinful, would you tell them that their problem is their sinfulness, or would you tell them that the problem is they've been socialized by their particular religious community to condemn something that isn't really a sin? Would you try to convince them not to commit that particular "sin", or would you try to convince them that it's not really sinful in the first place?

11/30/2006 10:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Mike,
Good question. I suppose the bigger question is "how do we determine what is sin?"

My response would be to look to Scripture as interpreted by my Church. Obviously, we run into a bit of difficulty here trying to decide whose Church is correct on any given issue. ;-)

But to answer your question directly..........
If a friend came to me with a question about drinking in moderation, I would lead them to Scripture, discuss with them how drinking effects them personally, and talk to them about how best they can serve and glorify God in this situation.

To relate this back to the article---Pahl implies that the very fact something is taboo, makes it a temptation. And thereby, makes the "do-er" feel dirty.

This doesn't really apply in this case.

But, I see the point you are trying to make; and I believe it has some merit. But Pahl takes it too the extreme.

What if my friend was stealing from his company? dumping dangerous chemicals down the sewer? spreading false rumors about her Pastor? contemplating an abortion?......

Peace,
Felicia Swavely

11/30/2006 11:30 PM  
Blogger Mike Clawson said...

My only point was that Pahl's article probably appears differently depending on whether one thinks that the issue in question is really a sin or not. You don't like what he has to say because you are convinced that homosexuality is wrong. But if he was talking about an issue that you thought was not a sin and that some Christians are too legalistic about, you might be more inclined to listen to his perspective.

Or maybe not... personally I think we are social beings, our identities, our struggles, our temptations are BOTH personal as well as social issues. I don't think it's "blaming society" to recognize the fact that we are social creations. What we consider "sin" and whether or not we feel guilt and shame about it, is very much conditioned by the cultural norms we are raised with. In my opinion, this is simply a fact, whether one likes it or not, regardless of whether or not it might give "sinners" an "excuse" for their sins. It's just inescapable. We are not the "rugged individualists" that our warped American society tries to tell us we are. So in that regard, I think Pahl has a point.

Just my perspective...

12/01/2006 8:59 AM  
Blogger Brent C Sleasman said...

Is there a difference between being willing to accept full responsibility for one's actions and actually being fully responsible?

12/01/2006 7:54 PM  
Blogger bill Sloat said...

Felicia,

Thanks for your comments on this thread.

When I read Pahl's article, my first inclination was that he probably needed to work on taking the plank out of his own eye, when it comes to sporting a truncated view of sin. I'm far from an authority of early church theology, but I strongly suspected that Pahl's description of Augustine's view of sin was itself severely truncated.

And, you did what I didn't take the time to do. You demonstrated that it is.

Thanks.

I'm with you all the way on this except at the point where you allow any church to interpret Scripture for you.

Preach it, sis!

12/04/2006 7:59 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home