Posted on 11/06/2006 10:04:14 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Nov. 03, 2006: Hypocrites?
A sensational but to-date unsubstantiated allegation has been hurled at a major American religious figure. On much of the left, the reaction is gleeful delight: See! He is no better than anybody else!
In my mind, however, this story highlights a widespread moral assumption that I have never been able to understand.
Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.
One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.
The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.
Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?
After all, the first man may well see his family and church life as his "real" life; and regard his other life as an occasional uncontrollable deviation, sin, and error, which he condemns in his judgment and for which he sincerely seeks to atone by his prayer, preaching, and Christian works.
Yet it is the first man who will if exposed be held up to the execration of the media, while the second can become a noted public character - and can even hope to get away with presenting himself as an exemplar of ethics and morality.
How does this make moral sense?
Let me put it another way:
In every other avenue of life, we praise people who rise above selfish personal wishes to champion higher principles and the public good. We admire the white southerners who in the days of segregation spoke out for racial equality. We admire the leader of a distressed industry who refuses to ask for trade protections and government handouts. We admire the Arthur Vandenbergs and (someday) the Joe Liebermans who can reach past party feeling to support a president of the opposing party for the sake of the national interest.
If a religious leader has a personal inclination toward homosexuality - and nonetheless can look past his own inclination to defend the institution of marriage and to affirm its benefits for the raising of children - why should he likewise not be honored for his intellectual firmness and moral integrity?
"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self."
Personally, I think we should all gaze into the darkest corners of our souls, examine what dwells there, and then embrace it, make it a cornerstone of our daily lives, and justify it despite any harm that it may do to ourselves and others.
Owl_Eagle
If what I just wrote made you sad or angry,
it was probably just a joke.
Haggard beame remorseful ONCE CAUGHT.
Televangelical cults of personality are SO obviously full of these actors and actresses.
Gated estates, TV lights and makeup, books, blah, blah, blah.
Mr. Haggard is not a hypocrite.
A hypocrite is one who states or maintains that he does not do something when, in fact, he is doing that very thing.
No one has yet caught him in such a lie. He upholds everything good before God as he teaches others, despite having temptations elsewhere. Even if he succumbs to that temptation, he is not yet a hypocrite, but just a sinner. He becomes a hypocrite when he states he doesn't do that sin.
People have got to get their heads screwed on straight here. If having sin in one's life was the deciding factor on who could speak the Truth of God's Word, then NO ONE could EVER speak a Truth of God.
There is a lot of wisdom in this.
But....that said, Scripture makes it clear that teachers are held to higher standards for what they teach and that elders must be above reproach.
If this were about a lay leader of small Bible studies, ie, something like alcoholics anonymous, where everyone is struggling together....then I think I would agree with the sentiments here 100%. But if you are talking about a mega leader like Haggard, or a senior pastor/elder, then I think that a higher standard is warranted Biblically.
In any event, this whole episode makes me sick.
I hope the marriage amendment passes in Colorado.
Well there you go, some guy I have never heard of in CO maybe or maybe not had a homosexual affair. Guess I had better run out and vote for the Dems. (/sarcasam)
Of course! All sins are found that way, but few admit it and repent of it.
Even if the news wasn't the reason for his final confrontation with sin, I would have hoped it would have been God. But even then some one like you would be there to point a finger saying the same stupid stuff.
Tell me a sin you've felt remorse for that didn't come from a public or private confrontation over it, either with a person or solely with God.
Even if it was with God, we are supposed to repent to the one(s) we hurt.
This man even supported the person who revealed his sin.
His example is a good one for all Christians to follow.
Well, that is, those who may still sin. Some apparently have been able to stop such human failings, right?
Hypocrisy isn't the evil it's cracked up to be.
I've noticed this. What they don't get is that being gleeful at someone else's fall is just as much a sin as that committed by the fallen one.
They also don't get that Christianity is all about the fact that humans are sinful and need a Savior. Of COURSE people are going to fall down. But if they have Jesus as their Savior, they have Someone to catch them.
Ditto. And, if the lifestyle is so 'natural', why do so many tempted into it hate it, attack it and support its banishment? Maybe in hope of ridding themselves of it by ridding the world of it? Who knows the hurt of the sin more than the sinner?
I actually was thinking along these same lines... At least he paid for his trysts, not preying on the young that he obviously had access to.
Men are weird.
Sarah
I have read where he admits to buying the drugs, but then throwing them away. The article also indicated that he admitted getting massages from a male prostitute, but didn't actually have sex with him.
If that article was correct and he did admit to doing those things, then he was being a hypocrite while he preached against doing such things.
But those of us in Christ have our Savior to catch us when we fall.
VS...
Haggard's Diary : Hypocrites ? A Moral Look at David Frum's case.
Note; thats pretty much a push... NEXT?..
From the dictionary, "Main Entry: hyp·o·crite Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit Function: noun Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai 1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings - hypocrite adjective
I think we can safely say that Mr. Haggard is a hypocrite.
It's true that Ted Haggard lacked the courage to confess his sin and step down on his own. But when God used Mike Jones to give Ted Haggard a nudge in the right direction, he drank the bitter cup and did the right thing. I believe that in time, Ted Haggard will come out of this a far stronger Christian and a powerful witness to the glory of God. I also believe his family will stand by him.
Who among us is immune to temptation?
Who among us is called to condemn where God forgives?
I feel sorry for his wife, and their kids. She looked so miserable in the photo in Saturday's paper.
No he's not and he never said he was. Every Christian knows that we all fall far short of the Glory of God and we're never 'good enough'. I hope that Haggard's congregation remembers the Saviours admonision to the woman caught in adultery... 'Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more'.
I sincerely doubt that. He has probably been ashamed and remorseful for years. Haven't you ever done anything that you're ashamed of that you hope nobody ever hears about?
The honest one (i.e. the latter). DUH.
No, not according to the Word of God.
Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?
No. Hypocrisy is not the ultimate sin here. Unrepented sin is "the sin."
After all, the first man may well see his family and church life as his "real" life; and regard his other life as an occasional uncontrollable deviation, sin, and error, which he condemns in his judgment and for which he sincerely seeks to atone by his prayer, preaching, and Christian works.
His atoning needs to be through total, absolute, utter repentance, the kind of house-cleaning, with accountability to other leaders, that will keep him from returning to sin.
Throughout the Bible God made it abundantly clear that His measure of the life of a leader or any believer doesn't mean He weighs good works in apposition to unrepented sin. As long as there is an elephant in the living room (gross, unrepented sin in the House of God), God is going to be working on the unrepentant to repent. After giving the person time to repent, if he/she doesn't, He will judge it, as He did in this situation (expose it and deal with it through earthly authorities). God is holy and commands His people to be holy. This will never change. A leader who is engaging in immorality or other gross sins is affecting the people given to his care. A leader who does this, who has been charged with bringing the church to maturity to present her to Christ as a pure bride, can't fulfill his God-given mandate.
1 Timothy 5:24 "The sins of some men are quite evident, going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after."
This is one of those "before" cases.
So, by that logic, a murderer is "more moral" if he champions murder as a Good And Natural Thing?
"Televangelical cults"
I keep seeing this in relation to Haggerd. I think its important to realize he wasnt a televanglist. I cant recall him every having a show on tv
Which is great.
I just hope that he pursues a much more humble, non-public ministry. If we never hear of him again, that would be a good sign.
Liberals make the mistake of looking at this Haggard guy as some kind of evangelical pope, which is way off base. Evangelicals are notoriously independent, distrustful of large organizations, and in agreement on the sinful nature of all men. This Haggard thing is a non-issue.
What an idiotic argument Frum is advancing.
Haggard is equivalent to someone who passes himself off as a civil rights advocate while privately degrading and denegrating blacks in his actual daily doings. Frum lacks either the intellect or the intellectual honesty to put the analogy in those terms.
For what we know, perhaps the gay guy touched him down there and he didn't stop it. Not right in any context, but not sex, either.
_____________________
Bill ... Mr Clinton ... Is that you?
In order to have society function, there must be sin. In an atheistic worldview, there are only a few candidates. Hypocrisy is common and in this culture, racism is still a secular sin.
Although the various sins change with different societies, hypocrisy has stayed pretty well fixed as a secular sin.
I know. There are some shades of that, here.
But if it was a caress and he sought to get aroused, that is sexual immorality.
I AGREE.He that is without sin, cast the first stone. Just because a person has accept Jesus Christ as Savior for their sins, doesn't make them sin-less! It wasn't until David was caught in his sin that he admitted it!!!
When I stopped communicating about my problems, the darkness increased and finally dominated me.
"He who build a high gate invites destruction" - Proverbs 17:19
Darkness can't be overcome without consistent disclosure and accountability.
What about David and his adultery with Bathsheba?? He didn't admit it until he was confronted? Or do you just not believe God's Word at all?
I agree with this. THere is a autheor by the the name of Peter Kreeft I believe from Boston College that write something similar.
I guess I just see things differentlythan most. Everytime I go to COnfession I have to examine myself and challenge myself not to rationalize things away. Something I think too many Christians do and in a perverse makes them fail to see whatFrum is talking about.
Christianity will always be a easy target because many don't see the truthof what is saying. The other day I had this conversation with someone. I told him to go rent the movie "The APostle" with Duvall and maybe that would make it clearer
He is also, like all of us, a sinner, and one who has let his succumbing to personal temptations disappoint his large flock who believed that he embodied what he preached.
I think there is a difference between the sinner who repents, changes his or her behavior, and preaches against it -- classic examples being St. Paul and St. Augustine -- and the sinner who preaches against behavior he secretly indulges in.
That's the thing about evangelical or fundamentalist preachers who get caught engaging in homosexual or other illicit sex that so disgusts normal people: it's not that they're not sinners as are we all, but that they preach one thing and practice another. If a preacher is not strong enough to stand up to temptation, that's normal - if sad - human failing, and, of course, no matter how good, every preacher will fall prey to some sin -- simply because we al sin. But, that's not to say that it's just dandy for preacher Ted to preach morality on Sunday and boff the boy on Monday. The least a preacher who is sincere in Christ can do when he or she succumbs to gross immorality is to step down before he or she becomes a cause celibre and the object of ridicule.
I know. There are some shades of that, here.
________
More than just shades of the Clinton argument, IMO, you have swallowed it (whoops) hooker, line and sinker.
Please forgive me being so blunt, but why would arousal by hand not be sex, but oral arousal is? I don't think you can have it both ways (why is everything I'm writing so full of double entendre?)
As does all Christian Leaders...everyone is a sinner.
God uses all kinds of people to spread the word. We all know of the characters that appear in the lineage of Jesus. I cannot condemn Rev Haggard...or Jimmy Swagart, Larry Lee, Bill Webber or even Rev Bob, for that matter...they are all sinners just like me...all falling short of Jesus.
But unlike me, and indeed most people here, every one of the "fallen" have lead thousands of people to a serious relationshop with God.
I cannot say for sure that I have been responsible for leading even one person to God. I bet that most people here haven't either. All I can do is to live my life as clean as possible, dodging the temptations the best I can...and taking advantage of every opportunity to spread the Gospel.
Sorry, this logic sounds a bit tortured for me. The guy is a major hypocrite preaching family values then having a homosexual affair and doing drugs. If there is any hypocracy to point out on the left is that they usually defend this type of behaviour.
"Men are weird." --Now, if we all started from that premise, how many news stories would actually be news stories? ;)
Here are a few facts from Wikipedia that might be helpful to you.
Quote: "Haggard has condemned homosexuality, preaching that "we don't have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity, it's written in the Bible." Haggard opposes same-sex marriage, but has suggested that states should be free to enact civil unions for homosexual couples.
He condemned homosexuality, ConservativeMind, all while engaging in homosexuality. So how can you say he's not a hypocrite?
He's also a liar. When his accuser came forward, Mr. Haggard denied knowing him.
If you still do not agree with me, perhaps you will agree with Mr. Haggard, himself. "He wrote a letter During a New Life Church service on Sunday, November 5, another pastor read a letter from Haggard that stated:
I am so sorry for the circumstances that have caused shame and embarrassment for all of you....The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality, and I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. 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....The accusations that have been leveled against me are not all true, but enough of them are true that I have been appropriately and lovingly removed from ministry. — Ted Haggard, letter to New Life Church
He should just admit he is "gay" and hope his wife and kids still love and stand by him.
I agree. It is also important to note that Ted Haggard would still be preaching the Word of God to his followers, and raking in their money, if he hadn't gotten caught. He did not come forward and admit his hypocrisy, lies and sins out of choice. He did so because he got caught.
I can understand people wanting to pray for him, and even forgive him, but I cannot understand people defending his immoral actions with excuses and denial of the fact that he is a hypocrite and a liar. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I do believe the men and women who become priests, preachers and pastors, have a responsibility to their parishoners.
BINGO...
If it is true, as you seem to be claiming, that consistency is the measure of morality, then the murderer who preaches murder should have no objection to being murdered, should actually applaud and assist his own murderer.
But that's not what murderers do, is it?
So who is displaying greater morality -- the one who remains consistently sinful and unrepentent or the one who sins, covers it up, then reverses himself and gets right with God?
Who is more honest -- the one who consistently and brazenly denies that his perverse and aberrant habits are just as good as healthy habits or the one who admits that his unclean habits are, in fact, unclean, repents in his heart and with God's help, turns his life around?
The cover-up is a sin that prevents any possibility of getting right with God. Ergo, hypocrisy is a greater sin that the original subject of the cover-up, since it includes the latter in addition to its own inherent evil.
It's easy enough to understand in the intellectual sense. Frum is making excuses for Haggard for the same reason the Democrat hired guns made excuses for Bill Clinton -- defending the guy on their side trumps any notion of decency, integrity, or personal honor.
My parents smoked, and told me never to start because it was addictive and destructive. Were they hypocrites, or using their experience to deliver a warning against something they knew all too well?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.