Saturday, November 04, 2006

The Ted Haggard Scandal
How will we, and how should we, respond?

Yet another evangelical scandal.


And Ingrid Schlueter writes




David Wayne writes,



  1. Keith,

    Your post is outstanding and a proper call to appropriate procedure when we face such tragic events as the sad moral fiasco with Pastor Haggard.

    I think also your proposed continum of reaction between "Shoot the Wounded" on one end and "Excuse the Sinner" on the other sums up nicely the evangelical church's response--typically an E/O.

    And surely not to disagree with your proper exhortation, Keith, my own take is that dealing with morally failed Leaders is not exactly the same as dealing with what we usually consider non-leaders, as some seem to imply. Haggard represented--at least to the mass media--30 million+ evangelicals, not a plain vanilla position, we all would agree.

    James 3.1 warns that Leaders receive--whether or not they desire or deserve--stricter scrutiny and the Pastorals make plain those who desire to be Church Leaders, while desiring a noble work, must face the moral music of a litany of character traits specifically directed toward them.

    Personally, I think, whether his idea or his eldership's, it was a good thing to immediately step down until the investigation is complete. I also think you are right on by insisting that he keep quiet or speak humbly rather than dismissively. "I bought it but didn't take it" sounds strangely like "I smoked it but didn't inhale it". President Clinton's words were similarly unconvincing.

    Gordon MacDonald and his Church surely is the model of Christian charity when a Leader falls. Upon his confession of the inappropriate liason between him and another woman, he stepped aside and took a seat in the pew. After several years being under the care of Elders, reconciliation with his wife and seeking the Lord, he actually was invited back to his pulpit. An amazing example of love, forgiveness, accountibility and being the People of God.

    Again, Keith. Superb post. I trust your Lord's Day tomorrow is filled with grace. With that, I am...




  3. Good post.

    It was more sickening than the scandal itself to see those beat their chest with the "Haggard fell because he is not us" mantra. Couldn't get more simplistic and short sighted than that.

  4. After watching Haggard so sincerely and skillfully lie about even knowing his accuser, I am amazed at the darkness and powerful influence that Satan has in this supposedly saved and Christian leader. What a deceptive, clever and powerful tool for the kingdom of Satan!

    A reformation is not what is needed, but regeneration.

    "Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" Heb 10:28 This is not just an issue to contemplate about modern evangelicalism. This is serious sin and destructive to the church in its purpose to give glory to God. We have to have God's perspective on this. For a person to be representing the testimony the gospel of Jesus Christ and His death in payment for sin and His glorious resurrection and decide to walk in sin because he happens to be curious about it, that's just like you have wiped your feet on the death of His Son. You have insulted the Spirit of grace. It is like you have spit in His face. All that awaits you is the full fury of the vengeance of the living God. If one is not saved from the power of walking in sin, looking for it and deliberately practicing it, then what are they saved from? Is this just a joke, a game, or is a true Christian’s salvation real?? Wake up!

  5. Thanks, one and all, for the comments. I always wanted this blog to be a forum, not just me throwing my ideas into the ether.

    Peter, my brother, thanks for the kudos. Even though I did write that leaders are just people, I also recognize that the gravity of their position requires extraordinary measures when dealing with sin issues. I take my cues from 1 Timothy 5:19-20 -- basically, don't entertain frivolous accusations, but if something is proven, the leader must be publicly rebuked (and depending on the gravity of the situation, removed from office temporarily or permanently). I also think Gordon MacDonald's example is quite appropriate.

    David, thanks for joining us. I agree--the response was more disturbing to me than the allegation.

    Malott, yes, the political "timing" shouldn't be ignored. This smacks of "dirty tricks" big time. But politics isn't the whole story. Haggard should be held to a higher standard than your hypothetical liberal Episcopal.

    Brad, you're solidly engaged with the STW crowd, I see....

    Grace and peace to all.

  6. I would love to see Phil or Ingrid go on record to tell us that Christians who are Calvinistic/no mega church/no marketing driven/not seeker senstive/not charismatic/or whatever sin much less.

    Because as you say, essentially that is what they are saying. Let's see some data instead of vitriolic rhetoric, Phil and Ingrid.

    How about this:

    Haggard fell because he is like the rest of us:  sinners like us.

    I think I will post a link to your posting in a few days when I post my take on this.

  7. The more public the condemnation the more meth-fueled the private practice.

  8. Thanks for a clear and balanced presentation on this issue. You are right, I think, in your analysis.

    I do think that Christians set themselves up somewhat for these controversies by following a worldly superstar attitude to Christian leaders - which is perhaps reminicent of Paul's "super apostles".

    I knew very little about Ted Haggard, but there have been other cases of Christian leaders who are followed too closely, where this has led to problems. I can't say I'm enamoured with the idea of Christian superstars.