Ted Haggard - Some of the Accusations are True

I realize that the Ted Haggard story is the hottest thing in the news right now.  The story is so new and fresh that I hope some restraint in reporting and commenting until more is known.  I first heard about this last night when Glenn Lucke e-mailed me about it.  Apparently a gay male escort has accused Haggard of having sex with him over an extended period of time and he also used methamphetamines.  This is big news as Haggard is the pastor of one of the largest and fastest growing churches in America, is friends with James Dobson and many in the religious right, and is president of the large and politically powerful National Association of Evangelicals. This is an especially explosive story since it breaks on the eve of the 2006 elections and because of Haggard's opposition to same-sex marriage.

While watching the Louisville - WVa football game I did a little surfing around for info and as of last night Haggard was denying the allegations and James Dobson had come to his defense and had gone on the attack against the accuser and others who were believing the accuser.

This morning things have changed - Haggard admits that at least some, but not all, of the acccusations are true. We don't know which ones yet, maybe the drug charges are true and the sex charges are not, maybe some of the sex charges, but not all, are true.  We'll have to wait and see.

On the one hand, the accuser is an admitted drug user, admits he has political motivations in revealing this right now and he failed a lie detector test this morning.  On the other hand, the administrator of the lie detector test is not convinced the guy is lying, and a voice analyst found several exact matches between Ted Haggard's voice and voice males left on the accuser's phone.

In any case, this reveals issues that go beyond just the present issue and I want to digress into some of these now.

Phil Johnson has already weighed in on this speaking of the damage it will cause to the religious right, and not only to them, but to all evangelical ministries.  But Phil thinks this goes much deeper:

The back-story here includes just about everything wrong with 21st-century "evangelicalism." This was the top leader of the largest organization representing America's old-guard evangelical core. The movement (not everyone associated with it, of course, but the drift of the movement as a whole) long ago sold out eternal values for more pragmatic and temporal concerns: political power, contemporary fashions, public opinion, and a lopsided moral agenda.

While I didn't read this story with quite the degree of apocalypticism that Phil has, I certainly can see some huge fallout from it.  Here's my two cents:

1. Does it really  surprise anyone that Christians aren't able to live up to the moral standards they profess to believe.  King David couldn't, the apostle Peter couldn't, the apostle Paul couldn't (Romans 7 anyone?).  So why should we be surprised when someone like Ted Haggard has such a fall?

2. In light of the above, this illustrates the folly of Christians who campaign on a platform of moral authority. Morality is a very "law based" thing, and as Romans 8:3ff illustrate, law (and moral standards?) is uniquely ill-equipped to combat sin. 

3. In light of both of the above the thing that distinguishes Christians from others is not our moral superiority or moral authority, it is our identity as recipients of grace.

4. Christians are never perfect, but nor are we merely "just forgiven" as the old bumper sticker says.  We are forgiven, but the grace that forgives also enables us to say no to sin, and our lives, including our moral lives, are necessarily improving.  Yet, we are always simul justus et peccator as the old theologians used to say, simultaneously justified and sinful.  While we are always to be growing in grace, we are always to be reminded of the presence of and battle with indwelling sin.

5. In my own humble opinion, this may partially explain some of these "falls" we see.  Moral crusaders tend to see sin as something external to the individual, so their lives get wrapped up in building external restraints against sin.  I wonder if they lose sight of the fact that the greatest battle with sin in our day is the battle with the sin in their own hearts?

6. This does not negate civic responsibility.  I am not sure, but this may be a place where I diverge a bit with Phil Johnson, but I do think there is a proper place for Christian civic responsibility and Christian involvement in politics. But such involvement is based on love of neighbor and a desire to promote the common civic good, not Christian triumphalism or any misguided notion that law, apart from grace, can really restrain sin in the larger society.

7.  Back to #5 - I sometimes wonder if the moral crusaders make proper use of the means of grace.  I don't want to overstate my case here because, as I mentioned before with the apostle Paul, use of the means of grace does not guarantee you will never sin. I am quite sure Paul made use of the means of grace yet he still had the Romans 7 struggle with sin.  But when I think about people like Ted Haggard, and the Mike Trout's and Gil Moegerle's and John Paulk's of the world, I see people who probably spend lots of time travelling, speaking and engaging in worthwhile ministries.  But I wonder how often they were away from a home church on Sundays before their falls.  I wonder if they were in a small group or Sunday School class where they were fed the Word of God and could develop deep relationships with fellow believers who could love them and pray for them and hold them accountable.  I wonder if, in prep for their speaking engagements and other ministry opportunities, they gave greater attention to the pressing issues of the day than to the Word of God.  Maybe they did, but I do wonder.

8. And bringing this all back around, the upshot of everything  I have said is simply this - Christian engagement with the world (whether political, social, evangelisitc or otherwise) is not based on a position of moral authority.  It is based on grace. Our "common ground" or "bridge" to a non-Christian world is our shared humanity, our shared sin nature, not our moral excellence.  Again, I hope we are growing in moral excellence, but we are just too sinful to ever make that our platform or basis for engagement.

I also hope that we Christians will now be diligent not to act as if we have some kind of moral superiority over Ted Haggard.  If these accusations are proven to be true it will indeed be tragic, and there will indeed be legitimate fallout, and Christians will indeed need to take the lead in disciplining him, and restoring him as a brother as far as possible.

But lets also be careful that we not assume some moral superiority to, or moral authority over, Ted Haggard.  Those of us who do not base our ministries on moral superiority and moral authority may feel morally superior to those who do.  We may feel morally superior because we rely on grace not moral superiority.

The truth is, I am Ted Haggard, we are all Ted Haggard, and Ted Haggard is all of us.  And may God have mercy me, on Ted and on all of us.

Update - just as I was finishing this I got an e-mail from Josh Claybourn who has written an excellent post on not confusing Christianity with the misdeeds of Christians.