Christianity Today Wants Me to Like Ted Haggard
This month’s Christianity Today coverboy is Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals and pastor of a Colorado Springs megachurch.
Now, I’ve had some harsh words for Pastor Haggard in the past, and I’ve also given him a little praise. As most of my past reaction was informed by Jeff Sharlet’s article in Harper’s, I was interested to see how Haggard might be portrayed in a mainstream evangelical publication. Maybe a different perspective would change the way I felt about Pastor Ted.
The cover hails Haggard as “A New Kind of Evangelical,” and Tim Stafford spends a couple column inches telling us about how Pastor Ted doesn’t wear suits, how he has a ”Vote for Pedro” bumper sticker on his truck, and how he’s the most optimisticest person you’ll ever meet. The article quotes a retired pastor from Colorado Springs, saying “It’s really pretty hard not to like Ted Haggard. You can not like some of the things he does, or some of the things he might say on occasion, but it’s pretty hard not to like him personally.”
Okay, fine. He’s likeable. Sunny. Optimistic.
Great.
But since Haggard is also one of the most prominent and powerful evangelicals in the US, the things he does and the things he says are pretty important. And, quite frankly, it’s the doing and the saying that still bother me. A lot.
Under Haggard’s leadership, the NAE has encouraged evangelicals to become more involved in environmental conservation and in fighting poverty. Last year, they released a position paper called ”For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility” that details their positions in these and other areas. I don’t agree with every thought in the paper, but I read it when it was first released and was greatly encouraged by it.
Sadly, whenever Pastor Ted starts talking about the new evangelical focus on the environment and poverty, I start to become less encouraged.
I’ll start with the environment and save Haggard’s ideas about poverty for a later post. In an interview that is a companion piece to the CT article, Haggard has this to say (rather than trying to excerpt, I think you should read the whole thing):
Where is the NAE on environmental issues?
We’ve released a document, “For the Health of the Nation,” that talks about environmental issues. And we hold that, along with several other items, as very important issues for evangelicals. Our position on environmentalism is that God created the heavens and the earth, we are human beings made in the image and likeness of God, and we have domination, control over the earth right now. That makes us responsible for it.
We think there needs to be a strong environmental voice that believes that human beings are superior to animals and that human beings are not animals. We are the image and likeness of God on the earth. We are his representatives. We’re salt and light. We are the church. So because of it, we can eat cows and chickens, and we can swat mosquitoes with no guilt. But we also have a responsibility to endangered species and to the forests and to the oceans to make sure that we are stewards of the earth.
So, how have the environmentalist groups taken to what you say?
We don’t respond to them. They’ve all tried to reach us and communicate with us, but we are so diametrically opposed to some of the traditional environmentalist philosophies that we don’t return their phone calls, because we think this should be an evangelical Christian issue. We think the environmental solutions should come from our philosophy of human responsibility and dignity, because we’re in the image and likeness of God, rather than we’re a fellow animal in the animal kingdom.
We think that our approach is a pro-business, pro-free market approach to environmental problems, where their approach is typically anti-business and anti-free market. Their solutions will never work. It’s going to require our approach to improve some of our environmental problems. I think our strategy is better. Our strategy is more thoughtful.
Ultimately, since God created it all and God is sovereign and God will judge it all in the end, it’s only God-type solutions that will work. All the other attempted solutions that various human beings will try will fail.
You’re using biblically-based arguments to say we should protect the environment. Should Christians impose that reasoning on the rest of society?
There’s nothing wrong with the biblically based argument as long as there’s also a compelling state interest for people who don’t believe in the Bible. The environment is everybody’s concern. Everybody breathes the same air, everybody swims in the same ocean, everybody drinks out of the same water. Right now all we’re doing is heightening the awareness among evangelicals that it’s okay to be like me. I am a white, heterosexual, conservative Republican evangelical, and I am an environmentalist. And that needs to be okay. But in some circles, they would assume a white, heterosexual, conservative Republican evangelical can’t possibly be an environmentalist. That’s the switch we want to make.
First of all, I’d like to welcome white, heterosexual, conservative Republican evangelicals to the table. It’s kind of a shame that Pastor Ted seems interested in talking only to you, but since you’ve been a little reticent to address environmental issues until now, it’s good to have you aboard.
The fact that Haggard starts his argument with a strawman is a pretty clear sign of where he is coming from. The scolding environmentalist killjoy that wants to take away Pastor Ted’s chicken and save the precious mosquitoes might be a standard liberal bogeyman that conservatives use to frighten their children, but it’s an insult to groups that have worked for decades to preserve the very things that Haggard now says he cares for.
Are there groups out there that advocate completely giving up meat and not even killing insects? Probably. But that doesn’t describe the more established, respected environmental organizations. Sure, these groups might target huge factory farms because the animals live in appalling conditions and because of the profoundly negative impact the farms have on the surrounding land and waterways. But that doesn’t mean they want to take away your steak. These groups might be concerned that unchecked corporate practices are devastating ecosystems and wiping out species at an alarming rate. But that doesn’t mean they don’t swat mosquitoes when they’re getting bitten.
Hell, I kill ants by the thousands, and nobody’s protesting outside of our apartment. And if they’d do it anywhere, it’d be in Berkeley.
This mischaracterization of environmental groups is disturbing, but I’m particularly worried by Haggard’s unwillingness to even begin a discussion with these groups. For one thing, if he really is interested in caring for creation, he’s got a little catching up to do, and I’d think that the more well-established environmental groups might offer resources and experience that evangelicals could learn from. And if Pastor Ted is so convinced that his strategy is better and more thoughtful, then he should be willing to talk about it. But instead, he doesn’t even take their calls. Wow. From someone who is so passionate about evangelism, this just seems maddeningly counterproductive.
Haggard claims that what makes his approach better than any other is that his is a “God-type” approach — pro-human, pro-business, and pro-free market. And while I understand the Biblical basis for the “humans are not animals” bit, I’m not sure what is particularly Christian about an environmental approach that favors business and the free market. In fact, I’m pretty sure that business and the free market played a starring role in causing many of the environmental problems we have today.
Let’s go over this again. The free market runs on a single, powerful engine: rational self-interest. Christianity? Not so much. ”In humility consider others better than yourselves” doesn’t do much for a market, unless it makes you buy better gifts. Actually, I’ll be writing more about this in the next post, so I’ll just leave it there.
But the biggest problem with Pastor Ted’s discussion is that it’s not immediately clear just what his approach is, exactly. I assume that “creation care” is a little more specific than caring really, really hard about creation. And I truly hope that Haggard’s plan isn’t just “heightening awareness” among white, heterosexual, conservative Republican evangelicals that it’s okay to be an environmentalist, as long as they don’t support any existing environmental groups.
Because in his sunny, optimistic way, that’s what he makes it sound like.
23 Ripples from “Christianity Today Wants Me to Like Ted Haggard”
dufflehead says:
November 11, 2005 at 12:12 am
is it ok to issue a string of profanities here?
i mean i won’t if you would rather i didn’t in your house, it’s just ... this . . .sort of thing ... .makes me want to use strong language.
typical american evangelical. why don’t they be original sometime and help existing movements instead of “inventing” their own?
oh, wait, they don’t want to get too close to real people. better to look and preach at them from behind their stained glass windows.
Kevin says:
November 17, 2005 at 12:11 pm
It’s very hard for a lot of Christians to care about the environment because it flies smack in the face of the way they view the world. Those who buy into the Left Behind mindset see the destruction of the environment as a good thing, since it means Jesus is going to come back and save us all pretty soon. Saving the environment might mean that we’re fighting against God’s master plan, and woe to anyone who would do that (although it’s suspicious that Jesus said blessed are the peacemakers, yet we’re supposed to also be skeptical of peace in the Middle East--just whose side in Jesus on anyway!?).
zalm says:
November 18, 2005 at 4:11 pm
I agree, Jacke, that we should assume less and discuss more.
In fact, I’d go even further to say that with a topic as far ranging as this and categories as broad as “conservative” and “progressive,” I think you’ll find a wide spectrum of reasons and levels of support within each group.
But I’m curious… is there a particular mischaracterization in what I wrote that prompted your comment?
Jacke says:
November 18, 2005 at 4:11 pm
A bit of wisdom for Progressive Christians?
Why don’t you try not pretending that you understand the reasons that Conservative Christians support or do not support certain issues and Conservatives could try not to pretend they understand the reasons that Progressive Christians support on do not support certain issues?
Those pretentions tend to make us all look stupid, respectively, of course.
We might actually have the rare opportunity to ASK each other why we support or do not support certain issues rather than ASSuming we know.
Jacke says:
November 18, 2005 at 11:11 pm
No, zalm, I was replying more to dufflehead and Kevin than to you and I don’t have much time right now and should have just kept my fingers away from the keyboard. I’m extremely tired and somewhat stressed at the moment. It shows, doesn’t it?
I hope to get to catch up with everyone a little more next week, but will still be on a busy schedule. I’d love to reply to Aubrey? Audrey? but it would take more time than I have to spare at the moment. I’m sure you understand.
Hope everyone has a nice weekend!
dufflehead says:
November 19, 2005 at 12:11 am
hmm, can’t say that i mentioned conservatives in my post.
and, for reference, i used to be a conservative. so, i’m pretty sure i know the whats and whys, unless they’ve changed in the past couple of years.
dufflehead says:
November 19, 2005 at 12:11 am
ok, so maybe that last statement was a bit too bold even for me.
let’s make it say “i used to be a conservative so i have a good idea of where they’re coming from”
Kevin says:
November 19, 2005 at 12:11 am
Hmmm. I don’t think I mentioned specifically mentioned conservative Christians either. It seems, Jacke, that you’re the one tossing around the labels loaded with pretensions. But, like dufflehead, I also grew up a “conservative Christian,” in a family of them, and in a community of many more of them. I’m pretty sure I know where “conservative Christians” are coming from and how they think.
Jacke says:
November 19, 2005 at 8:12 am
Dufflehead says:
Kevin says:
So, Dufflehead, who are they?
Kevin, who are those who buy into the left behind mindset?
And what did I say?
Jacke says:
But...that’s okay, I suppose “they” and “those” who come from a position of utter wisdom never have moments like that.
Happy weekend!
Jacke says:
November 19, 2005 at 9:11 am
Zalm writes:
Okay, Zalm, Haggard may, very well, have mischaracterized some environmental groups but certainly you cannot claim he has mischaracterized all environmental groups. Overall, I think you were fair in your analysis of his remarks, but I think that Dufflehead and Kevin, later, stepped over the line into generalizing that he speaks for all “white, heterosexual, conservative Republican evangelicals,” and pretended to know the motives behind why they would agree with Haggard. I agree with the gist of what Haggard says, I just don’t think he was very articulate in the way he approached the issue and I agree with you that he could gain some insight into the issue by referencing work which has already been started by existing environmental groups which have not gone off the “deep end.” Certainly he could have been more specific in identifying the particular groups which he was speaking about, I ASSume he is speaking of extremist, activist environmentalists, not mainstream environmentalists. You simply allowed him to speak for himself and chastised him for that action, or inaction, as the case may be. Dufflehead and Kevin generalized sarcastic motives behind all white, heterosexual, conservative Republican evangelicals, or at least that is the way it seemed to me. So I’m sorry that you thought the comment I made earlier was addressed to you, it was not.
It can also be said that there are “Progressive” Christians who will not allow discussion and are in respectable positions among their peers, so, there is nothing “inhuman” in that. I am not suggesting that because there are Progressive Christians who do the same that that makes Haggard’s doing so appropriate or acceptable, just reminding you that he is not alone.
In my very humble opinion, there needs to be consideration of the fact that the free market is in the business of turning a profit and that they should do so in a way which balances their goal with that of protecting the environment and as I said, Haggard doesn’t appear to be very articulate. Thankfully, he doesn’t speak for me anymore than Pat Robertson speaks for me.
Kevin says:
November 19, 2005 at 10:11 am
Jacke, you’re implying things that I said that I did not say. I never claimed to “speak for all ‘white, heterosexual, conservative Republican evangelicals.’ I said that many Christians who buy into the Left Behind interpretation of reality, premillenial dispensationalism, think that the world is not their home. Because of that, those particular Christians who believe this way often feel they have no obligation to care for the world. Perhaps I should have qualified that by saying ”some of those who buy into the Left Behind mindset see the destruction of the environment as a good thing.” But there are many Christians who believe that this is part of God’s design, that the world must get worse and worse for Jesus to come back. That includes environmental destruction. It’s self-fulfilling prophesy and there are some Christians who are all for it.
That said, some people in this country have been known to complain about using politically correct terminology because it stifles any real discussion. It seems to me that we’re doing the same thing here. Generalizations should be avoided whenever possible, but they are also necessary for us to get anything done. If we spend all our time pinpointing the exact 38,458,392 people who believe a particular thing, taking care not to label them the wrong thing, we might as well not even discuss these issues at all.
Jacke says:
November 19, 2005 at 11:11 pm
Kevin writes:
So, then you should have no problem with Haggard doing the same? zalm spent a fair amount of time chastising him for not differentiating between extremist environmentalists and moderate environmentalists, I didn’t note that it was particularly bothersome to you in that case. But I truly have no interest in continuing in this little side argument with you. You said what you said, you generalized, now you seem to think that we might as well not discuss anything at all if we’re going to quibble about generalizations. Well, there was plenty of quibbling going on about the generalizations of Haggard in the post which received your first response. I guess it makes a difference who is doing the generalizing and about whom the generalizing refers...well, surprise, surprise!
dufflehead says:
November 20, 2005 at 12:11 pm
the they that i refer to are the evangelicals; specifically, those that Haggard represents.
bit of wisdom for Jacke; quit it with the passive agressiveness. all it does for me is make me active agressive. sugary sweet coatings don’t do much to cover up bitterness.
Jacke says:
November 20, 2005 at 4:11 pm
dufflehead,
a bit of wisdom for you would be that you not assume to know me, that you not assume that my comments are “sugary sweet coatings” which cover bitterness. I have a real problem with people who think that those with whom they agree can do no wrong but those with whom they disagree can say nothing right and are attacked with vengeance on every semantic misstep they take. Haggard identified himself as a “white, heterosexual, conservative Republican evangelical,” and zalm at least offered an opportunity for white, heterosexual, conservative Republican evangelicals to respond as to whether they agreed or disagreed, zalm’s was an example of how one may address a controversial subject or entity without generalizing that all those who are “like” that entity or all those who that entity “speaks for” (in their opinion) actually do feel he, in this case, Haggard, does speak for them. You are vague over who “they” are but not the least vague in passing judgement upon them.
The reason I involved myself in these discussions among Progressive Christians is to put an individual voice behind the words and try to clarify the meaning rather than allow Progressives to read their own, often faulty analysis into what was said and I find some Progressive bloggers have commented more upon what was not said than what was said, drawing conclusions and basing their judgements of a person on what he or she did not say as though by not saying anything about something automatically leads to some insight of its own, and no, I am not saying zalm has done that.
I will continue to raise my voice where and when I feel the urge and I will do so in the style in which I am comfortable whether you, personally, approve the style or not. If it causes you to react in a particular manner that is your business and quite out of my control.
dlw says:
November 20, 2005 at 9:11 pm
I also dislike the manicheistic manner in which Haggard frames the issue.
This goes completely against the central dictum of my Christian Pragmatic Progressive Party that “an active involvement in politics can be glorifying to God if done in an ethical manner that is not dogmatic and seeks to widen the range of interests that potentially can be served by the government.”
In this case, the bottom line must not be maintaining our sense of cultural distinctness but rather engaging in political activism as a means of winning the opportunity to form friendships with others wherein we can eventually share about matters of faith.
My longstanding criticism of Haggard is that he is making the NAE into yet another special interest group. I also was very disappointed in him when he refused to push for the NAE to publicly repudiate Pat Robertson. He really doesn’t seem to want to rock-the-boat of conservative white USEvangelicalism much and to be a leader, you need to be willing to undergo the duress associated with such rocking.
dufflehead says:
November 21, 2005 at 11:11 am
one of the reasons i never liked living in the south was the whole, “you shouldn’t be offended by what i say because i was just kidding”. i’m very comfortable swearing, but i don’t when i’m unsure of the crowd.
i do appologize for using the word bitterness; i don’t pretend to know you and i was afraid, afterwards, that the word choice was going to miscontrue the point.
and to clarify my position further, the “they” would have to be evangelical leaders that have simillar opinions to Haggard.
and to tie it all back in, i agree with zalm. great assessment of the article. my first post in this was speaking out of frustration for the “church” planting scene and the unwillingness of, predominantly, evangelical congregational leaders to work with existing groups towards the same goal. possibly it’s just the “american” mindset to do it by yourself in a subconcious hope of getting all the glory and publicity.
dufflehead says:
November 21, 2005 at 12:11 pm
i use “church” to mean “congregational temple establishment” and church (no quotes) for the people. just so you know why i use the quotes.
Jacke says:
November 21, 2005 at 12:11 pm
dufflehead,
The “Church” or individuals in it should not be doing anything in an effort to get glory, they should be doing things selflessly and referring the glory to God, imo. But then, we’re all stupid and identified as sheep in the Bible for a reason, I suppose.
dlw says:
November 21, 2005 at 8:11 pm
I don’t see working to reform the precise manner in which the sword of the State is wielded as necessarily about getting glory for oneself, or, as is true in the case at hand, working to alter the distribution of property rights so that the right to pollute is assigned to interests that value more the need for ecological stability is not about getting glory for oneself. But I’m sure many people do it for egotistical and pecuniary reasons.
I believe that more fundamentally, taking the time out of our schedules to follow and deliberate and act on politics, is just part of how we holistically love our neighbor.
dlw
dufflehead says:
November 22, 2005 at 9:11 am
dlw,
i was addressing haggard’s (and other evangelical leaders) unwillingness to work with established groups; there seems to be this sense of “we did it and everybody else copied what we did because we didn’t tell them how/what we were doing and we didn’t bother to listen to or work with anyone else.”
dlw says:
November 22, 2005 at 2:11 pm
I can’t say I followed you.
dlw
dufflehead says:
November 23, 2005 at 3:12 pm
i’m referring to haggard’s response to the second question.
-----
Shelly Stone says:
June 17, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I came across your blog entry when searching some Ted Haggard quotes.
I find this hilarious. A view of Ted pre-meth, pre-gay prostitute visits. Obviously, while everyone was praising pastor Ted’s almost democratic (shudder) approach to politics, Ted was banging a whore while cranked up.
I just think the hypocrisy in hilarious. So funny....
And today I saw that some “christians” were protesting gay marriage ceremonies in Ca. They said some of the dumbest things I have heard, after making it a LAW, this moron wearing a Jesus tee shirt said, “cause its against the law!” Which law exactly? The “law” of christianity, which none of you would ever follow cause you would all go to hell, or the “law” of the United States of America, which you only want to made by Christians, for Christians.
Wake up. Freedom means freedom of and from religion. That means WE ALL HAVE RIGHTS.
Not just those who “have decided to follow Jesus.”
Shelly