A defense of Haggard? Only if you reject principles

From Andrew Sullivan: David Frum defends Haggard here. And what an intellectual activity it is. Here are a few quotes from Frum's article and some refutations to his arguments:

Passage One:

A sensational but to-date unsubstantiated allegation has been hurled at a major American religious figure. On much of the left, the reaction is gleeful delight: See! He is no better than anybody else!

In this first paragraph, Frump, I mean Frum, I hate it when I make that mistake, reminds his listeners that the evidence needs to be tested and offers an ad hominem attack against the left. It seems that if you are on the left you cannot discuss this without being "gleeful" (no hasty generalization here; nothing to see here, look away). Frum's position is that we need to be reasonable but that does not mean he has to be reasonable (only you need to live by the law and be fair to others; he does not have to). Liberals are wrong for attacking Haggard; but since Frum is not a liberal, he can defend Haggard and attack liberals. This opening seems to reflect the intellectual honesty of the entire article.

Passage Two:

Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.

One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.

The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

There are a three ideas that need to be discussed in this point. First, it is okay to hire male prostitutes if you are married. It seems you can live a life of indiscretions as long as you present a correct public face. Is that not true Young Goodman Brown? Again, these moral principles only apply to you and not to your leaders. It is very hard to be a leader. It is "Hard Work!"

Second, is this not relativism? Frum's criteria is "more moral." In this hypothetical, if individuals were to adhere to "traditional moral principles" then both men needed to be condemned because neither one leads the moral life. Our "traditional moral principles" would frown upon both individuals. The conclusion to reach is that these traditional moral principles are not principles, just a means to an end, convenient only when useful.

Third, an important phrase appears in Frum's text: "Inclined toward homosexuality." Does this mean it is an orientation? The connotation is not clear, but it is incredibly important. Think of of this: If humans are inclined toward homosexuality then God created this inclination, (wouldn't that be the necessary connection between designer and designed?) If there is a designer, then biblical interpretation against homosexuality is blasphemy-- as humans, how could we condemn something God made? Furthermore, to not adhere to the "inclination toward homosexuality" would be to reject the talents given by a designer. Which human is to say that it is not a homosexual's purpose to develop a loving, stable relationship even if it violates "traditional moral principles." In 1 Samuel 18 - 20, David and Jonathan have a deep spiritual relationship that could serve as a foundation for a "traditional moral principle" about the way in which a relationship should develop. In our world today, we may eve consider that relationship to be homosexual.

Passage Three:

Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

This is a good redefinition of the situation- "turn the tables" in refutation. Yet, though Haggard is living a virtuous life by turning away from a moral evil (that may not necessarily be an evil), he also engages in an affair and purchases Meth. You cannot remove these from the equation. There is a reason people turn to drugs and, in this case, his "living in a closet" while bashing his desires or "inclinations" in public leads to worse vices. And besides, isn't Meth illegal? Where is the virtue in this? And speaking of Hawthorne, maybe Haggard and Frum should read The Scarlet Letter. Maybe an education in the classics would not be a bad thing.

Passage Four:

In every other avenue of life, we praise people who rise above selfish personal wishes to champion higher principles and the public good. We admire the white southerners who in the days of segregation spoke out for racial equality. We admire the leader of a distressed industry who refuses to ask for trade protections and government handouts. We admire the Arthur Vandenbergs and (someday) the Joe Liebermans who can reach past party feeling to support a president of the opposing party for the sake of the national interest.

What is the "public good" here? Speaking out for the protection of marriage would be a public good only if the speaker's actions followed his words. If not, then he violates his own ethos of a speaker and the ethos of his community. Is the public good to rise above personal desires for the interests of the community? Haggard does not do that. Is it a public good to forget about party politics and support "national interests," and in the process allow for torture, which detracts from the "national ethos?"

Even worse, the text suggests that speaking out against homosexuality, I mean defending traditional marriage, is exactly like speaking out against segregation. This is a valid analogy? If homosexuality is designed, then the opposite would be true. Those who speak out against it act in a manner that reflects segregationists- they deny the humanity of others.

Passage Five

If a religious leader has a personal inclination toward homosexuality - and nonetheless can look past his own inclination to defend the institution of marriage and to affirm its benefits for the raising of children - why should he likewise not be honored for his intellectual firmness and moral integrity?

His moral firmness depends on his interpretation of the Bible. First, I am all for defending the institution of marriage by engaging in affairs. Maybe affairs do save marriage. Sure there is a Commandment that addresses that, but it is not as if Evangelicals think they are "Commandments." They are just suggestions, right?. It is not as if they interpret the Bible literally.

Second, the concept of homosexuality did not exist until the 19th century-- to apply a concept from modern times to the bible is problematic. To apply a text that one or multiple authors prepared for a specific audience that existed hundreds of years ago seems equally as troubling. There is a reason that Jews were commanded to not eat shellfish-- the lack of knowledge on food preparation a few thousand years ago made many people sick. Today, we do not follow those prescriptions since we know how to prepare food.

Third, there are multiple ways to interpret the bible and the passages that concern "homosexuality." Since there are a lot of issues with his interpretation of the Bible, why should we praise his "intellectual firmness?" Is it good to praise a person for their intellectual habits when they reduce complex issues through simple, dogmatic interpretations that deprive others of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Is it "intellectual firmness" to speak out against who you are? Is it "intellectual firmness" to defend Haggard's actions when his actions clearly violate the ethos of his community? Further, is it "intellectual fairness" to live according to a few of the 600 hundred rules discussed in the Old Testament?

Passage Six:

"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self."

The hardest victory is over the self- to make sure the self preserves in the face of great social conformity and against the desire for power. Haggard denied his self to ensure his own rise to power. The desires he needed to overcome is the desire for power and his desire to bash others like himself to achieve this power.