On hypocrisy

hypocrisyWhen Mike Jones went to the media with claims that New Life megachurch pastor Ted Haggard had paid him for sex and meth, he said he did so because of Haggard’s hypocrisy. Jones said he felt that Haggard was a hypocrite because he preached against homosexual behavior while also engaging in it.

The hypocrisy slur has been lodged against Haggard far and wide.

Two recent essays in First Things question the hypocrisy claim. While First Things is a religious journal, reporters on the Haggard beat — or any subsequent scandal story — should read them. Robert Miller argues that people aren’t hypocrites because they violate a moral norm in which they profess to believe:

Hypocrisy is a much worse form of moral wrongdoing. It’s a certain kind of lying, and so can be done only consciously and intentionally.

. . . Ted Haggard, I am sure, always believed that homosexual conduct was wrong, always wanted to avoid such conduct, and always regretted engaging in it after he did so. He found himself experiencing very powerful desires contrary to the values he sincerely believed in, desires he wished with all his heart he could have escaped from, desires he refers to as a “repulsive and dark” part of his life against which he has been warring for a long time. Sometimes, contrary to his wish, he gave in to those desires. This makes him weak, not a hypocrite.

Richard John Neuhaus added to the comments by providing a modern example of hypocrisy. German novelist Günter Grass loudly proclaimed for years that any of his countrymen who was affiliated with Nazis should be ostracized, more or less. And yet he had willingly served in the Waffen-SS and had hidden that fact. Neuhaus says false accusations of hypocrisy show a “naive indifference to the reality of the conflicted self.”

Kevin Simpson and Eric Gorski’s piece for The Denver Post uses the Haggard scandal as a jumping-off point to discuss homosexual behavior and its causes:

Although the nature versus nurture debate — biology versus psycho-social factors — has simmered for years, most recent research has pointed toward sexual orientation being hard-wired into humans, at least to some degree, said Anthony Bogaert, a psychology professor at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, who studies sexual orientation development.

What’s so interesting about this story and so many others that deal with the “root causes of homosexuality” is the underlying assumption that an individual who engages in both heterosexual and homosexual behavior is, well, obviously and unequivocally gay. Take Ted Haggard. Here is a man who has been married to a woman for decades and has five children. He also, allegedly, paid a man for sex for three years. Isn’t it interesting that so many people assume that combination means he’s gay? You bake one loaf of bread, it doesn’t mean you’re considered a baker, but for some reason we think differently about sexuality. But only in one direction — men in homosexual relationships who’ve slept with — or even been married to — women aren’t considered straight.

Anyway, what’s missing from the whole Denver Post article is the view of some Christians that homosexuality — whether or not it is genetically influenced or some product of cultural influences — is not the best expression of God’s plan for sexual desire. The absence of that information or perspective makes the rest of the article — which more or less condemns evangelical efforts to assist homosexuals in modifying their behavior — ring hollow.

Print Friendly

  • Chris

    Ted Haggard NOT only engaged in homosexual acts, he was also involved with drugs (meth). Anyone who had used meth in the past knew that it is an expensive drug. Anyone who bought it but changed their mind will put it aside. No one will throw it away. It is NOT a box of Tic Tac or M & N Chocolate where one will throw them away. It is the biggest lie I had ever heard. Why can’t straights in America accept the lifestyle of gay men like those in Canada and Scandinavian countries? Since when the most mighty country in the world became so backward? Why can straight people be more accepting and accomodating? Why do we have to disapprove of others’ lifestyle. The article written by Mollie is very one-sided and I don’t think she has much knowledge of the gay world. Very soon she will be left behind by others if she does NOT update herself of what’s going on in the real world which includes the gay community.

  • http://www.therightreverendrabbijudah.com The Right Reverend Rabbi Judah

    Haggard’s struggle with his sexual pulsions might not have been hypocritical. But his decision to carry out his functions as a pastor in spite of succumbing to them certainly was.

    There are a growing number of denominations that allow for practicing and non-practicing homosexual clergy. His is certainly not among them. So every time he took to the pulpit (which at New Life, appropriately enough, looks more like a stage than an altar), he was in effect very consciously lying.

  • JOHN WICKEY

    There have been for a number of years a consistent trend in the mental health profession to type all mental disorders as “hard wired,” genetically based, not the consequences of the development of the personality. In fact, homosexual desires have great variation, and extensive differences in their origin, with just as many variations in the extent to which the desires are lived as a way of life. John Wickey, Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist.

  • Dave G.

    “What’s so interesting about this story and so many others that deal with the “root causes of homosexuality” is the underlying assumption that an individual who engages in both heterosexual and homosexual behavior is, well, obviously and unequivocally gay.”

    Wow. I never thought of that. This is an interesting point. It’s right, too. Funny how lemming-like we folks are. How many of us have heard this said time and again and never questioned it. Makes me wonder. Then again, that’s why I like this website.

  • Ken

    Why the picture of the Traditional Mass with this post, with the word “hypocricy” underneath? What’s all that about?

  • Hans

    Chris wrote

    The article written by Mollie is very one-sided and I don’t think she has much knowledge of the gay world. Very soon she will be left behind by others if she does NOT update herself of what’s going on in the real world which includes the gay community.

    I believe that Mollie was making a counterpoint in this post, essentially offering an argument (or perhaps only making an observation) that she feels has not been made adequately in the MSM. It seems to me that Mollie was referencing rather one-sided coverage and attempting to offer the other side. Your criticism that she is being one-sided fails to understand her use of a rather simple jounalistic device.

    Furthermore, your claim that Mollie will be left behind if she doesn’t change the beliefs you defensively think she holds really reflects a poor understanding of the rapture.

    Out of curiously, could someone explain to me how homosexuality could possibly be genetic, as many claim? I’m certainly no whiz when it comes to biology, but I would think that, if there is a gene that makes you not attracted to members of the opposite sex–and thus makes you not procreate–that such a gene would take itself out of the gene pool pretty quickly.

  • Hans

    Chris wrote

    The article written by Mollie is very one-sided and I don’t think she has much knowledge of the gay world. Very soon she will be left behind by others if she does NOT update herself of what’s going on in the real world which includes the gay community.

    I believe that Mollie was making a counterpoint in this post, essentially offering an argument (or perhaps only making an observation) that she feels has not been made adequately in the MSM. It seems to me that Mollie was referencing rather one-sided coverage and attempting to offer the other side. Your criticism that she is being one-sided fails to understand her use of a rather simple jounalistic device.

    Furthermore, your claim that Mollie will be left behind if she doesn’t change the beliefs toward homosexuality you defensively think she holds really reflects a poor understanding of the rapture.

    Out of curiously, could someone explain to me how homosexuality could possibly be genetic, as many claim? I’m certainly no whiz when it comes to biology, but I would think that, if there is a gene that makes you not attracted to members of the opposite sex–and thus makes you not procreate–that such a gene would take itself out of the gene pool pretty quickly.

  • Michael

    if there is a gene that makes you not attracted to members of the opposite sex—and thus makes you not procreate—that such a gene would take itself out of the gene pool pretty quickly.

    It’s not the homosexuals can’t procreate, it is just they are oriented not be attracted to someone of the opposite sex. There’s a difference. Procreation is a biologial function that is disconnected from ones orientation.

    Anyway, what’s missing from the whole Denver Post article is the view of some Christians that homosexuality — whether or not it is genetically influenced or some product of cultural influences — is not the best expression of God’s plan for sexual desire. The absence of that information or perspective makes the rest of the article — which more or less condemns evangelical efforts to assist homosexuals in modifying their behavior — ring hollow.

    Do you really think there is a single person in the readership of the Denver paper who doesn’t already know this? It’s like a reporter needing to explain that the sun rises every morning; it’s something of a given. I understand the desire for neutralizing language to make the largely-disproven therapies a little more palatable, but I wonder if that neutralizing language would have really moved the story forward.

  • http://t-hype.blogspot.com taryn

    Great post.

    I was just talking about that last night. What is absent from the mainstream discussion is the question of identity that is addressed here. Rather than saying Ted Haggard is attracted to/has a fetish for other men, there is a quick move to label him.

    I know several Christians who previously lived the “gay lifestyle” and that’s how they describe it. Homosexuality does not define them. It is something they were a part of, (I Cor. 4:11) not an identity.

  • Pingback: Outer Rim Territories » Hypocrite?

  • Peter

    There is a very solid reason that “so many people assume the combination means he’s gay.” And that is the direct personal experience of a significant percentage of the gay community. The vast majority of gay people have some experience with the closet.

    If you are going to evaluate underlying assumptions, then don’t ignore the one that seems to pretend that heterosexual and homosexual acts happen in a social vacuum.

    Ted Haggard will have to speak for himself, but in the general case, it is fair to say that someone who engages in both gay and straight sexual acts, ESPECIALLY someone who is older, established, and has a huge amount to lose must have a far more compelling reason to engage in gay acts than the straight ones.

    The social, political, and religious deck is hugely stacked against same-sex sexual acts. People don’t just casually choose to buck those obstacles for kicks.

    Ask around, and you will find a lot of gay men who have a similar story, of trying to pass for straight, and trying to fool both themselves and others.

    It may be that Ted Haggard is some sort of exception. But the reason that “people assume” that he is gay is because the vast majority of people in this situation actually are.

    Yes, maybe it is true that the media leapt to label him, but let’s not pretend the assumption has no solid basis in public experience.

  • Hans

    It’s not the homosexuals can’t procreate, it is just they are oriented not be attracted to someone of the opposite sex. There’s a difference. Procreation is a biologial function that is disconnected from ones orientation.

    Michael,
    I am fully aware that homosexuals are capable of procreation. And I know the difference between orientation and procreation. My point is that homosexual sex doesn’t make babies. And if there is a gene that ORIENTS people towards homosexual sex, and they act in accordance with that genetic orientation, they won’t procreate and thus won’t pass the gene down to anyone else. Obviously there may be homosexuals who still engage in heterosexual sex and manage to procreate. But as long as there are more homosexuals who are exclusively homosexual, with every generation there should be fewer homosexuals, because the majority of those who have the “gay gene” aren’t passing it down to the next generation.

    I’d hate to stray too far from the specific nature of Mollie’s post and turn this into a forum of debate over the nature of homosexuality. I’m sure there are better places for that. But I just wanted to clarify my point to you, Michael, as you were greatly misrepresenting my argument.

  • Tim

    Peter, I know men who tell me the opposite
    story from you: straight men who were once
    gay. I guess it depends on who you talk to.

  • Pingback: CaNN :: We started it.

  • Eric W

    Excuse the use of the f* word, but this article in Denver’s WESTWORD indicates that there may have been more to Haggard’s habits than has been revealed so far: On Call

    In fact, based on what Haggard has said about struggling with this his entire adult life, and what this article says about some of his buying habits, he sounds like a gay man who married but was never ever able to overcome his gayness:

    Haggard’s life is now in the hands of several senior ministers — showing rare wisdom, Dobson backed out of the job — who are charged with determining just how dark his life has gotten. They might find it illuminating to stop by the Crypt, the adult store on Broadway where “Art” was a regular customer, spending a couple hundred dollars a month on sex toys, according to a former clerk. He bought “mass quantities” of cock rings, the clerk remembers, as well as an electrical unit designed to stimulate the urethra. One time he wanted some “very graphic and gay” videos, but the store was out of the titles, so “Art” left a number where the clerk could reach him. The number is the same one that Jones called last Wednesday to warn Haggard that they needed to talk.

    This issue of WESTWORD has a display ad from “The Crypt” and it’s definitely oriented to gay sex.

    If true, it’s somewhat ironic that one of the leading Evangelical/Charismatic megachurch pastors in recent years, and president of the NAE, was/is gay, and likely has been most of his life.

  • http://until.joe-perez.com/ joe perez

    Mollie,

    You’re really stretching reality with this post. The common sense definition of hypocrisy is talking one talk but acting another. Haggard fits the bill to a T. If a man has conflicted parts of himself that pull him in different directions, but he acts on those drives that pull him AGAINST the grain of his stated intentions and public duties, he’s still a hypocrite. What’s so tough to understand about that?

    As for your earth-shattering conclusion that journalists failed to report the fact that many Christians believe “homosexuality is not the best expression of God’s plan for sexual desire,” thanks for the laugh. Next on GetReligion: scientists say rain makes you wet.

    Really, if you DO have a non-trivial point, I hope you find a way to express yourself effectively.

  • http://www.tammyswofford.blogspot.com tammy swofford

    Can we just admit a couple realities here and cut all the psychobabble angst about Mr. Haggard? His wife, needs an AID’s test. His children, need a psychologist, and Mr. Haggard, needs a job. He dun it to hisself, folks. I am trying to squeeze out a tear, but I just can’t manage it.

  • Tom Harmon

    joe, did you read the post by Robert Miller at First Things blog? Maybe you’ll understand Mollie’s post after you’ve done that.

  • http://until.joe-perez.com/ joe perez

    tom – yes, I did. And I understand Mollie’s post. And I (still) found it ridiculous. But thanks for asking.

  • Frank D.

    The Denver Post article might ring hollow, I suppose, to a heterosexual who believes sexual orientation is optional; probably not to those of us who are gay and believe it is original equipment installed by the Creator. That’s an example of the difficulty gay and straight people have when talking to each other, face to face or through the media. I don’t envy any reporter trying to tiptoe objectively through this minefield.

    Somehow, a misunderstanding of genetics and the scope of same-sex orientation has crept into the responses here. Remember that it’s only been officially OK, sort of, for non-heterosexuals to form partnerships among themselves and NOT reproduce for a very short period of time. Society, and the church, always have told us that in order to be fully human, to be accepted and get ahead, even to get into heaven, it was necessary to pair up heterosexually and reproduce — and so we’ve done that and still do. In all likelihood some of YOUR ancestors were queer.

    That means that if there is a gay gene, no matter how it got there, it’s so deeply imbedded in humanity that it can’t be bred away. Even genetic cleansing (hopefully in a good Christian way — sterilization, lets say — not abortion) wouldn’t work. It looks as if we’ll be popping out to plague your assumptions for some time to come.

  • Pingback: Gay Spirituality

  • http://madprof.home.mindspring.com ron chandonia

    The comments on this thread are certainly enlightening. They help explain why Haggard has been portrayed as the worst of villains while Jim McGreevey and Gene Robinson are contemporary American heroes.

    Evidently it’s OK to be unfaithful to your wife and to desert your children if you are being true to what many people now regard as some more important component of your self-identity. But trying to stay with your wife/family–and fighting against that same component of self-identity (calling it “repulsive and dark”)–is unforgivably dishonest.

    That is the viewpoint Father Neuhaus was discussing in his remarks on the First Things blog. It is certainly the view of the MSM, and (judging from the comments here) it is the view of many gay men. Yet I wonder if it is a view those same men would have shared if they themselves had tried to form and maintain (perhaps against very strong inclinations) a heterosexual family life.

  • Frank D.

    This gay male doesn’t consider Ted Haggard a villain or Jim McGreevey and Gene Robinson heroes, although I do think Robinson did establish a record of decent dealings with his heterosexual family before gaining his current level of prominence. The jury still is out on both Haggard and McGreevey.

    So far as “to be unfaithful to your wife and to desert your children” is concerned, hetersexual unfaithfulness is not uncommon and neither heterosexual nor homosexual adulterers often desert their children, although both certainly complicate those children’s lives.

    But, no, the MSM have not done an especially good job of exploring the probable depth of Haggard’s despair because of what he perceives to be the triumph of a sinful nature in his life or the motives behind the battle to hold his family together. I think it’s very difficult for MSN reporters and analysts to move beyond the idea that Haggard is somehow just trying to maintain a facade and then find some way to move vicariously into the head and heart of a man who probably believes with every ounce of himself that a full-scale war between good and evil is going on inside him and that his soul is at stake.

    It might be useful to talk to gay men who have gone through similar experiences, and there are many of them, but I’ve not seen much of that (and I may just have overlooked it). Those I’ve talked to have a good deal of compassion for Haggard and understand what’s going on — because they’ve been there to one degree or another and done that.

    Having said that, I’ve never met a man able to reclaim a heterosexual identity after acknowledging a homosexual one no matter how hard he struggled to do so.

  • http://www.ecben.net Will

    I have asked this before. Are we being told that there is NO difference between “gay” and “bi”? If not, what IS the difference? Is this part of the line that “people who claim to be ‘bisexual’ are lying to themselves?” according the the latest edict of the faceless Central Political Correctness Comittee?

  • Frank D.

    Orientation warriors have problems with that one, let alone hapless reporters. It seems bisexuality more than any other labeled orientation depends on self-identification. If you say you’re bisexual, then you are. Who can prove you’re not? I suppose many gay men and lesbians are skeptical because of they’re/our experience — that it’s possible to be one thing but function effectively if not enthusiastically as the other. On the other hand, many more or less objective “experts” in matters of sexual orientation propose a range from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual and suggest that we’re all scattered somewhere along that range. But who is to say where one orientation begins and the other ends?