´óÏó´«Ã½

I hope y'all read the background articles. Sometimes I despair of my own mind but I can't resist drawing your attention to an absolute classic!

at the first sentence on the top of the page.

That's the first sentence of the article by the way.

Portwyne- Haha!! Saw it!

Haggard's a nut. And makes money too, which makes him even worse. But his hypocrisy wasn't relevant at all....

hi there - first post having followed this blog since it started. just a simple question: isn't it possible that a man who just revealed he was sexually abused as a child deserves some sympathy and respect before commentors dive in to insult him for mistakes he made as an adult?

I don't want to appear cynical, but as Ted Haggard has lied all along about events in the past there is a chance that he's lying about the abuse.

Of course it may be true, and if it is then he deserves nothing but sympathy. It equally may not be true.

amphibiousQuestioner-

Good question. Actually I think it's Haggard's hypocrisy that people revile, not the actions he admitted to. And of course if one believes those actions were wrong, it doesn't matter what he believes 'caused' him to act that way originally: he still chose to do it (and we'd treat a murderer the same no matter the background in the case). But I think you have a point here: nobody should be as upset with Haggard about his homosexuality, use of a prostitute, drug use or infidelity as much as they're upset about his deception, hypocrisy and charlatanism.

Thanks John - that's a good point (though I think the murder comparison is unfortunate - in fact the law does take account of the background to why people kill; indeed sometimes people who have killed may have an easier time re-integrating to society than someone who has been at the centre of a sexual scandal); but it's also worth remembering that Haggard has not capitalised on the circumstances he found himself in. There has been no book deal, no confessional interview, no new church set up to maintain his ministry; just abject apology and shame. I have known guys like this - men in Christian leadership roles who are confounded by their own sexuality and their inability to live in the open, or from a space that feels authentic...and this kind of inner conflict sometimes leads to behaviour that might seem outrageous, hypocritical or otherwise objectionable. The 'murderer' comparison is not appropriate - Haggard is a man with a broken experience of life, who has made terrible mistakes, and is apologising for them, trying to rebuild his life. (Some more quotations from his recent sermon are here: The fact that he still presumably thinks that being gay is sinful is a sad reflection of how the particular church culture he comes from cannot deal with sexual diversity. I have no desire to defend the homophobic culture that Ted Haggard of which appears to be both a victim and perpetuator, and in fact have dedicated much of my own activism to challenging it, but I feel he deserves more empathy than he has received as a human being in the middle of circumstances that were not entirely his making. I think the more important question facing the church is whether or not the whole range of issues to do with human sexuality will ever be discussed in the open, or if stories like Ted Haggard's will continue to be used as shovels to bury them in the sand of 'Christian respectability.

Questioner

I can agree with a lot of what you say, in principle. However, I think you are far too charitable: Jesus was not slow to kick ass where it was deserved and this strikes me as one case where serious censure is required.

I followed the link you posted and was frankly appalled. This man is displaying no sign of change - self-pity and declarations of repentance cut no ice with me. He displays a mindset I have frequently encountered: he focuses primarily on a physical/sexual failing which he externalises. He claims contrary to all the evidence to be cured. He is either lying to himself (in which case he needs treatment, not sympathy) or he is cynically lying to everyone else for the sake of rehabilitation (in which case he needs to be challenged).

Haggard is seeking to use his own deception and hypocrisy to continue the processes of alienation and repression of homosexual Christians he pursued in his pre-outing ministry. I was incensed by the use of the word 'depraved'.

Christians, like me, who believe there is absolutely nothing whatsoever sinful in homosexual activity and who believe that homosexual love, like any other kind of love, is to be cherished and celebrated, have an absolute duty to say so publicly and unambiguously on every occasion where the contrary position is aired.

There are so many Christian people horribly conflicted, often to the point of actual suicide, by their perfectly natural and beautiful feelings that we simply cannot let (in this case I am fairly certain, undeserved) concern for a particular individual mute or dilute our condemnation of those who would add to that suffering.

NB

When I said "contrary to all the evidence" in my post # 8 above - I was referring only to evidence with regard to the possibility of effecting a 'cure' for homosexuality.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

A repost with the ambiguity in my previous posting rephrased.

Questioner

I can agree with a lot of what you say, in principle. However, I think you are far too charitable: Jesus was not slow to kick ass where it was deserved and this strikes me as one case where serious censure is required.

I followed the link you posted and was frankly appalled. This man is displaying no sign of change - his self-pity and declarations of repentance cut no ice with me. He displays a mindset I have frequently encountered: he focuses primarily on a physical/sexual failing which he externalises. He claims to be cured while the general informed consensus is that it is not possible to cure homosexuality. He is either lying to himself (in which case he needs treatment, not sympathy) or he is cynically lying to everyone else for the sake of rehabilitation (in which case he needs to be challenged).

Haggard is merely using his own deception and hypocrisy to continue the processes of alienation and repression of homosexual Christians he pursued in his pre-outing ministry. I was incensed by the use of the word 'depraved'.

Christians, like me, who believe there is absolutely nothing whatsoever sinful in homosexual activity and who believe that homosexual love, like any other kind of love, is to be cherished and celebrated, have an absolute duty to say so publicly and unambiguously on every occasion where the contrary position is aired.

There are so many Christian people horribly conflicted, often to the point of actual suicide, by their perfectly natural and beautiful feelings that we simply cannot let (in this case I am fairly certain, undeserved) concern for a particular individual mute or dilute our condemnation of those who would add to that suffering.

Ted Haggard is such a gift for laughs:

amphibiousQuestioner-

You're right, and I hope the church someday comes to view homosexuality the way they now do slavery, though it'll be a while coming. And of course, there's no book deal YET. Also, the only way I used 'murderer' as an example was to compare 'wrong' to 'wrong', not to suggest they're similar in any way.

By the way, can I tell you I love your screen name?

thanks for the compliment on my screen name - alas i can't take credit for it as it's the name the bbc ascribed to me when me original choice was taken...

Anybody who feels sorry for Ted Haggard, should take a peek at how he treated Richard Dawkins, after he had asked him a few innocuous questions about evolution. I think it was in the root of all evil documentary.The man is a manipulative bully and has now been exposed as a hypocrite as well.
However before his fall from grace he was influential enough to be included in those odious presidential prayer breakfasts.