In yet another edition of the story that won’t go away, the Rocky Mountain News brings us James Dobson’s musings on the Ted Haggard scandal. Demonstrating the irresistable drive among the ex-gay industry to redefine words, Dobson has has decided that hypocrisy has a new definition.
James Dobson said Wednesday that disgraced evangelical Ted Haggard was not a hypocrite for preaching against homosexuality while engaging in “sexual immorality” with a gay escort, but was a man “at war with himself.”
[snip]It was not hypocrisy. It was a struggle between behavior and a belief system.”
No. What it was, doctor, was a man doing in secret what he preached against in public. You need a new dictionary; the one you have seems to have the definitions scribbled over.
First of all, I don’t really care about the issue of nature vs. nurture. I tend to think that it is a mixture of causes. One thing I hate is that people tend to base nature on genes, but biology is more complex than genetics. Even though there is a lot more suggestion that there is a biological bent (there is almost nothing on the nurture side), people continue to say there is no concusive proof regarding biological causes. That is disingenuous because I have taught English in the sciences, and generally evidence is not something as conclusive. Inductive logic at most is only 99% ever, and there is very little that even reaches the 99% level. Still, using inductive logic, we see over and over again the suggestion of a biological component to homosexuality.
Now, here is what Dobson has to say, “That [homosexuals]don’t have any choice. And if it were genetic, identical twins would all have it. If you had homosexuality in one twin, it would be there in the other. So it can’t be simply genetic.”
It has been found that there is more incidence of homosexuality if one twin has it, but Dobson is right–if it is only genetic. However, I was reading something the other day that also said that other issues like violence and alcoholism do not show up in both twins even though there is a genetic component to both. Biology, not simply genetics, can be an issue. However, even if genetics come into play, there are social constructs as well that would affect the twins. Dobson tends to use reductive fallacies fairly frequently.
BTW, I can’t remember where I saw that article on alcoholism and violence (I am constantly reading everything), but it stated that it was somewhat of a myth that identical twins had exact gene maps. This confused me because I had always heard that they were identical in genes, but the article stated that identical twins can differ up to 50% of their genetic make-up. I am not using this as proof or evidence since I can’t remember the source, but does anyone know the truth about this because everything I have seen says the opposite (that genetic codes are identical).
I forgot why I wrote the original message in the first place. Notice Dobson’s choice of words: “So it can’t be simply genetic.” At least linguistically, he is admitting that homosexuality probably has some genetic basis. If it is not simply, it is partly according to his words. Now, maybe it is a Freudian slip, but based on his words, he seems to suggest there is an unchangable factor to homosexuality.
Aaron, was it an article on epigenetics?
And Dobson, whose Ph.D is not in psychology nor psychiatry, is a credible source how?
The only Freudian slip was when Dobson invoked Freud as theory for the cause of homosexuality in men during the interview.
Xeno, when I go back to work I will try to find it. Maybe it was epigenetics. Journals and academic work comes past my desk all the time, and during office hours, I was just reading a bunch of stuff, but that article stood out.
The whole nature vs. nurture argument is ridiculous when considering civil rights. One can choose one’s religion. Religious freedom is one of the most sacred freedoms we hold and is it not more “nurture” than “nature?”
Dobson doesn’t know anything about the term penetrance obviously. The “gay gene(s)” are calculated to have something in the 60-70% penetrance rate, which means that not everyone who has the gene(s) is gay (but a good number are).
LOL…. Dobson doesn’t have the time to help his ‘friend,’ Haggard, in his ‘restoration;’ probably because he’s booked too many times to make a fool out of himself on Larry King.
I wonder what he will redefine next.
Aaron wrote…
For homosexuality to be genetic does not necessarily mean there is a gay gene, nor does it mean that identical twins need be gay for there to be a genetic component. When an X-chromosome fails to shut-down (methylate) then gene expression may occur (see: Bocklandt, S. Horvath, S. Vilain, E. Hamer, D. H. Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men. Hum Genet. 2006; 118(6): 691-4. – somewhere I managed to pick up a PDF of this article but I cannot find that link now, the link only goes to a NCBI abstact.). That process may work in one twin and not the other.
This may also be see in the larger number of aunts a person has over uncles (see: Green R, Keverne E (2000) The disparate maternal aunt–uncle
ratio in male transsexuals: an explanation invoking genomic imprinting. J Theor Biol 202:55–63). That certainly is true in both of my parents’ families, where aunts outnumbered uncles, 4 – 1.
Hmmm… the link for that last article is:
Green R, Keverne E (2000) The disparate maternal aunt–uncle
ratio in male transsexuals: an explanation invoking genomic imprinting. J Theor Biol 202:55–63
The thing that sticks in my mind regarding responses by Dobson and others close to Haggard is the 3-5 year timeframe.
I worked in an inpatient psychiatric hospital from 1980-83. A good proportion of the clients we worked with had long treatment histories and there were few quick-fix prognoses. But I saw no 3-5 year treatment plans.
Achieving stability in the wake of chemical dependency treatment is a long-term process as well. People are often encouraged not to make big changes in their lives in the first 12 months, but in my studies of addiction treatment there is no such thing as a 3-5 year treatment plan.
Perhaps there are parallels between the Haggard restoration team’s plans and treatment plans for sex offenders. Here’s one which lays out broad timelines in 3 phases with a total duration of 15-24 months.
In this context, I’m curious about what sort of care is planned for Haggard over a 36-60 month timeframe. What do they hope to achieve in the fifth, fourth, third, or second years which is distinct from those which came before?
And, note the caveat on the 3-5 year plan:
That combination seems ripe for setting Haggard up to fail. I know I’m speculating, but this seems like a plausible scenario:
The Haggard treatment plan will rely at least moderately on shaming him with ex-gay therapy and scaring him with lie detectors, and is light on evidence-based approaches (like cognitive behavioral therapy) for changing behavior.
Gauging Haggard’s progress will be a dicey affair, highly dependent on his ability to sustain a submissive posture with the team.
Power struggles will develop between Haggard and his restoration team somewhere in the 6-month to 2-year timeframe over the timing and meaning of lie detector tests and accountability guidelines.
When Haggard breaks away from the team before the 3-year point, he will cite them for straying from bibilical principles and they will call him a quitter who abandoned the plan.
The alternate (but less likely) ending would be the entire crew cuts and runs. They declare a miracle happened, “restoring” Haggard to spiritual health after only 18 months.
Haggard would only be a hypocrite if he DIDN’T believe what he was preaching, but continued to preach it anyway. Preaching something and then failing to live up to it despite your best effort is not hypocritical.
Haggard’s situation is on the face of it, hypocritical. One can only discern from the superficial responses. And superficially, Haggard is a hypocrite.
If the behavior is a simple choice as many evangelicals, such as Haggard, would claim, then Haggard in choosing to engage in homogenic sex is clearly being a hypocrite. It is the choice and not the sex wherein lies the hypocrisy (and Haggard seemed not tu understand that).
Were Haggard to say, and he alludes to this, that he had no choice in acting on that attraction, then he is being a hypocrite. In statements such as that he has been creating a situation at odds with his teachings. For what then is his best effort?
Haggard would only be a hypocrite if he DIDN’T believe what he was preaching, but continued to preach it anyway. Preaching something and then failing to live up to it despite your best effort is not hypocritical.
That statement itself exemplifies exactly the kind of hypocrisy the world sees in the church today and it turns them off. Do you honestly think we can get away with a fancy version of “do as I say, not as I do” and expect people to take us seriously? Please Patrick, see how you are deluding yourself there.
David, chill. You don’t know me, so how about you lay off asinine statements like “Patrick, you’re deluding yourself.”
Look, I did not even know who Haggard was until the story broke and have disliked Dobson for various reasons since I was in college.
Do you honestly think we can get away with a fancy version of “do as I say, not as I do” and expect people to take us seriously?
No, David. That’s not what I am saying. Please read my comment again. What I am saying is that someone may believe something and try earnestly to live up to it, yet fail. And here’s my point, so pay attention and read carefully. Failing to live up to something you profess belief in, despite your best effort, does NOT make you a hypocrite. Preaching something you do not believe and insisting others obey it is hypocritical. It’s likely Haggard believed every word he said, but found himself compelled to do otherwise.
And for the record, “do as I say not as I do” is a perfectly legitimate position to take in some instances. I’m not sure why so many people get all priggish and high and mighty when it comes to this. Parents take this position with their children all the time. For instance, say your parents smoked. They likely still insisted that you not smoke. They knew and understood the addictive nature of tobacco and the effects of smoking on your health. Knowing the negative effects of smoking, they told you not to smoke. The fact that they continued to smoke does not make them hypocrites.
Man, sometimes the gays sound like such high and mighty moral absolutists; it kills me. Seriously, I pop in here every once in a while to see what’s going on and if some of you guys could take a step back and read your comments objectively you might be a little embarrassed by the arrogance you see.
Haggard’s hypocrisy is this:
He not only preached against the evils and sin of homosexuality, but he participating in anti gay POLITICAL campaigns.
Our government is never make law that favors a religion, nor forces other citizens to live by it.
He and all the rest…are hypocrites for a number of reasons.
1. They are invoking the government to favor them and their religious doctrine and ideology.
2. There are no equivalent campaigns to legislate against adultery and drug abuse.
3. The adulterous, the drug addict can marry and none of these in this evangelical organization are occupied from keeping those who commit such acts FROM ever marrying once or again.
4. Haggard, I’m certain will continue to commit himself to preaching against homosexuality and any freedom to be married and care for children for gay people.
He obviously doesn’t believe or even found out for himself that gay sexuality doesn’t equal prostitution AND illegal drug use.
5. He wouldn’t dare submit the idea that a committed and monogamous gay relationship is more socially desirable and compatible and workable than what HE did.
6. Dobson and the others will take his sexuality more to task, than his adultery and drug use. His worst sin, was the engagement in homosexual acts. THAT’S where the curative process will start.
The one that most led to his downfall.
Of course, had he been able to live out his orientation freely and honestly…his wife wouldn’t have been betrayed in the first place.
And certainly not like this.
So where hypocrisy is concerned…and irony, Dobson is someone who can be relied on to deliver both in spades.
Haggard will continue to have to fight the ONE thing, he shouldn’t have ever had to.
That’s the saddest thing of all.
David, chill. You don’t know me, so how about you lay off asinine statements like “Patrick, you’re deluding yourself.”
How would “knowing you” make the content of your statement change? If you truly believe what you said, then I can only conclude that you are deluding yourself. I suppose knowing you better might give me some insight as to why you are inclined to do so, but the statement stands for itself.
What I am saying is that someone may believe something and try earnestly to live up to it, yet fail.
It’s likely Haggard believed every word he said, but found himself compelled to do otherwise.
I’ve spent 25 years in the church and I have a healthy respect for what these men go through. However, there is absolutely no Biblical support for your point of view. If Haggard found himself unable to live up to his own core beliefs, he was required to step down from leadership. Not doing this and instead spending years taking illegal drugs and paying a man for sex while at the same time preaching against such things really does make him a hypocrite.
And for the record, “do as I say not as I do” is a perfectly legitimate position to take in some instances.
Are you serious? Even in your example, the message of a parent who tells a child not to smoke while still smoking themselves is severely compromised. Your expectations of men in positions of spiritual authority are so low that you seem willing to make excuses even for this egregious behavior. That further illustrates my original point.
I disagree with you here, and it’s fine if you continue to disagree with me. However, If you continue to pop in, please don’t make statements such as “sometimes the gays sound like…” It’s an insulting generalization and it’s against our guidelines. You can join the debate and explain your point of view all you want, just do it civilly and within the rules.
There is absolutely no Biblical support for your point of view.
Who said I was arguing from Scripture?
Your expectations of men in positions of spiritual authority are so low that you seem willing to make excuses even for this egregious behavior.
No, my expectations of human beings in general are pretty low.
David, I’m gay. I used “the gays” in a humorous manner. Like I said previously, chill.
David, I’m gay. I used “the gays” in a humorous manner. Like I said previously, chill.
Gay or straight, please avoid using that kind of generalization while posting here. As for the scriptural argument, that’s where the rules for a church leader come from.
Seems to me the whole discussion here is about what hypocrisy is.
From Merriam-Webster:
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
Sorry, Dr. Dobson–a struggle between a behavior and a belief system where the behavior wins will always, by definition be hypocrisy.
I think the definition of hypocrisy here reveals pretty clearly that hypocrisy doesn’t have anything to do with whether you actually belief what you’re saying or not. Stated beliefs that do not match your actions means hypocrisy. If you want to call it simple humanity, fine. But the issue with Dobson–and the issue that is arising in the comments here–is the tendency to redefine words with negative and positive connotations so we can get out of them. We’ll rearrange the definition of hypocrisy subtly so Haggard isn’t a hypocrite, and then we’ll redefine gay as a set of behaviors so no one will notice that our ex-gays are actually still, by standard English, gay.
Patrick, I do not know if Haggard believed what he was saying, but his actions definately differ from his words. According to Mike Jones, the prostitute at the center of the situation, Haggard seemed pretty comfortable with what he was doing at the time. In fact, he did not even know who Haggard was because he did not act very strange or out of the ordinary as a john.
Haggard has said he is a liar and deceiver. He told his church that homosexuality was a sin and changable, but behind the scenes he reportedly said the opposite.
Yes, people fail all the time, but they do not stand behind a pulpit trying to stop people just like them from having the same rights in society. I think that is pretty unfair and hypocritical. It is Haggard’s ethos that has been destroyed, and for ministers, everything is based on ethos. Once that is gone, they no longer can have the same moral authority.
Cyrano said:
…is the tendency to redefine words with negative and positive connotations so we can get out of them.
Excellent point.
Cyrano, your definition supposes a willful disregard for what he believed. It does not take into account the human struggle he went through. We don’t know what he might have done to resist what he was doing, but was ultimately unable. I stand by my position that failure to live up to an ideal despite your best efforts does not make you a hypocrite. Am I a hypocrite because I believe I am commanded to love my enemies, but, despite my best efforts, I consistently fail to live up to that? No. I believe the injunction and I strive to live up to it. Many times, I fail.
Gay or straight, please avoid using that kind of generalization while posting here. As for the scriptural argument, that’s where the rules for a church leader come from.
I do not hold to the notion of sola scriptura. I try to use reason as well and I try to have compassion. For example, there are plenty of fundamentalists who think you and I will be chewed up and spit out to suffer and burn in eternal hell-fire. On the other hand, there are Christians who believe that homosexual activity is sinful, yet take a more pastoral approach. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. CCC 2358
That injunction is not found directly in scripture, but it makes sense and is consistent with what is found in scripture.
How is the term “the gays” offensive or a generalization? If that is seriously a problem for this site, you guys need to loosen up before you snap. I’ll refrain from using it, but I think you’re being silly.
Patrick,
You write, “Am I a hypocrite because I believe I am commanded to love my enemies, but, despite my best efforts, I consistently fail to live up to that?” There is a fundamental difference here. You say you believe you are commanded, and that is coming from an outside source, and you aren’t preaching it. Haggard was known for telling people what to do in a spiritual and political context, but he is not doing what he preached. Ultimately, we do not know his heart, but we do know his actions, and that differed from his words. Let me ask you, if you do not consider Haggard hypocritical (which I suspect that most people would based on definition), please give an example of someone who is hypocritical so we can see how you are perceiving this term. I think you will have a difficult time with an example because you are focused on how much someone believes something, and we can’t quantify that.
Many people consider the term “the gays” problematic simply because it suggests everyone as a body believes or acts the same. That is faulty reasoning. Someone said to me that “the gays did not vote for Arnold Swartzenneger in the last election,” but that is false because I did.
I can’t believe anyone is even debating the hypocrisy. Of course its hypocritical…jeez.
What I don’t understand is the drug use. Haggard acted on a fundamental sexual urge which is logical, but how did he get mixed up with Miss Tina? I can’t being to understand what was going on in his head.
Patrick,
I think I understand your defense of Haggard. I too think that he probably believes his condemnation of homosexuality. However, regardless of his intent or his sincerity, he was a hypocrit.
If you are willing to admit for us that the word “hypocrit” has an actual meaning, a shared understanding that can be looked up in a dictionary, then you have to admit that when arguing over whether someone was or was not a hypocrit, we have to defer to that meaning. It is not “cyrano’s definition”, or “patrick’s definition”, or “timothy’s definition” that we use, but rather the definition.
And the definition of hypocrit does not consider sincerity of condemnation. It simply contrasts private behavior with public proclamations.
A person who proclaims something he doesn’t believe may not be a hypocrit. A man who lives according to the code he teaches isn’t hypocritical, but rather he’s fraudulent.
Haggard may or may not be a fraud. He may or may not believe what he claims. But because he lived a private life at sharp contrast to his public proclamations, he is – by definition – a hypocrit.
Moving on to your second point, I do agree that we all fall far short of our personal goals, both public and private. And if I stand and say that I try and love my enemies, that does not imply that I always succeed.
However, if I stand and say, “I love my enemies” and then I am sneaking off to harm my enemies, then yes, I’m a hypocrit. According to the definition of the word. It’s not just a moral failure, it’s a sneaky act that is in conflict with the way I present myself.
Perhaps you don’t like the word hypocrit and think it is too priggish. But it is accurate when it is applied to Ted Haggard, your dislike of it notwithstanding.
Timothy already said most of what I was going to, but, to quote Patrick:
“Cyrano, your definition supposes a willful disregard for what he believed. ”
Yes. Yes it does. Only it isn’t my definition, it is from Merriam-Webster, as I indicated when I posted it.
I’m not attaching a condemnation here. I understand why Haggard said what he did and acted as he did, to an extent, because I myself have been there, and I was a hypocrite. I’m not going to try and get out from the meaning of the word simply because it isn’t pleasant. I recognize the validity of his actions and I sympathize for him, but we won’t get anywhere by twisting the meaning of the word hypocrite so as not to call him one.
“Am I a hypocrite because I believe I am commanded to love my enemies, but, despite my best efforts, I consistently fail to live up to that? No. I believe the injunction and I strive to live up to it. Many times, I fail.”
Here, I would disagree again, based on the dictionary definition of the word hypocrite. The point you are making is valid though: being a hypocrite, failing to live up to what you preach, is a common practice. It is a human characteristic. I freely grant that I am a hypocrite. Heck, I would go so far as to say that being a Christian and accepting the fundamental doctrine of human brokenness means knowing that your own self-righteousness is always tantamount to hypocrisy. I am a hypocrite. So is Haggard. So is Dobson. So are you. I don’t think this is the final judgment on any of us, even though it is a true statement.
The fact of the matter is this: Changing definitions to make yourself look better is an example of pharisaism and self-righteousness. Dobson wants to buffer his organization and Haggard’s reputation by getting out of the negative connotations of being a hypocrite.
“For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.” – Romans 7:19. It appears that even Paul was a hypocrite.
I do not hold to the notion of sola scriptura.
That’s irrelevant; Evangelicals most certainly do and Haggard is an Evangelical. Rules for the behavior of spiritual leaders in those circles come directly from the Bible. How you or the Catholic church operates has no bearing.
Patrick, I’m sure you know that you are acting like a troll here so I’m not going to go into detail. You dropped into a thread with a view contrary to all the facts, not to expand the debate but to be argumentative.
If you feel the atmosphere here is too restrictive, there are plenty of sites that tolerate and even invite this kind of argumentative behavior. Perhaps posting at one of them would be better all around.