David Frum plays moral Twister in a callous attempt to control evangelicals' response to the Haggard scandal
Very occasionally I come across an article that seems to me to be so inherently wrong in its arguments and its conclusions that I am at a loss to appreciate how its author could in good faith have signed off on it. David Frum’s NRO diary piece yesterday is one case in point. Frum is a former White House official, famous for co-writing GW Bush’s 2002 state of the union speech, which gave the world the term “axis of evil”.
In his November 3 piece he directs his attention to the scandal surrounding a highly respected evangelical minister, Ted Haggard, who has stepped down as president of the National Association of Evangelicals amid allegations by a male prostitute, Michael Forest Jones, that Haggard paid him for sex over a 3 year period, and also during the meetings took crystal meth, which was supplied to him by Jones. The scandal is generating such interest because Haggard is one of a number of influential evangelicals with ties to the Bush administration. He is said to have attended the weekly Monday conference calls which the president holds with religious leaders.
Frum’s piece has left me in such a state of bewilderment that I have not composed myself enough yet to be able to write a structured critique of it. Instead I have, in my state of discomposure, appended to his paragraphs my own short rebuttals. Frum’s text is presented in bold. It is entitled “Hypocrites?”
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! At the outset drawing political lines of battle. The left are capable only of reveling in somebody else’s suffering.
In my mind, however, this story highlights a widespread moral assumption that I have never been able to understand.
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? With only the scant outline of their moral lives offered above, who can say? The easiest answer is to say neither of them. But I suppose if, like Frum, you equate morality with traditional values then moral superiority could be claimed by the former man. Frum’s language leaves no doubt as to his opinion on the matter, even before he shares it with his reader. The former is in all other aspects a model of restraint: preaching (this word doesn’t have negative connotations amongst evangelicals), trying, generally encouraging; while the latter is obviously out of control: vilifying and urging.
But what if the second man has gone through the same inner conflict as the first, only at some point he has gone in a different direction? What if the second man has reconciled himself to his homosexuality, choosing not to seek moral guidance exclusively from evangelical interpretations of the Holy Bible, and after long, drawn-out reasoning and soul-searching has honestly come to the conclusion that legalizing (or decrimininalizing) drugs and prostitution is in society’s best interests, that is to say it will make society stabler in the long run? Then how can this man be leading a less moral life than the first one? Well, he could be if he too were lying to his spouse (significant other) and concealing from him a sexual relationship with another man.
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?
And what about the bad effect of his misconduct on his wife and children? Are they supposed to sacrifice themselves for the greater moral good? Were they consulted on this? Are they willing martyrs?
For Frum, there is only one moral authority, the will of God as expressed in the bible and interpreted by endorsed religious leaders. Unendorsed interpretations are of no significance. Such a view-point allows for absolutely no nuance, not even in interpreting its source for its moral principles. It has no time for any of the arguments that suggest that tactics in the war against drugs can be morally questionable. It grants no moral life to prostitutes beyond the immorality of the acts by which they engage in economic endeavour. Nor does it grant any moral life to the homosexual who is, according to Frum, a person merely “inclined” to homosexuality. That is, homosexuality is not an essential part of the psyche, of the emotional, spiritual and intellectual life of the person, rather an external temptation.
After all, the first man may well see his family and church life as his "real" life; and regard his other life as an occasional uncontrollable deviation, sin, and error, which he condemns in his judgment and for which he sincerely seeks to atone by his prayer, preaching, and Christian works. But as we’re being hypothetical here, what of a person who engages in gay sex while believing it sinful and immoral and who seeks atonement through prayer and by ensuring that no other people are hurt by his immoral actions?
Yet it is the first man who will if exposed be held up to the execration of the media, while the second can become a noted public character - and can even hope to get away with presenting himself as an exemplar of ethics and morality.
How does this make moral sense?
Let me put it another way:
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 equalityBut who would have admired them if at the same time they had been keeping slaves?. We admire the leader of a distressed industry who refuses to ask for trade protections and government handouts. But would we admire him if we discovered he was misappropriating funds to weather the economic slump? 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. Trying to score political points again. First, it must be clearly shown that Lieberman’s support for the government is indeed in the national interest and not a betrayal of it. Morally, though, surely the only thing that matters is if Lieberman honestly believes he is doing the right thing.
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? Since when was committing adultery and concealing from your spouse a 3 year arrangement for sex with a prostitute a sign of moral integrity? And surely marriage is to be defended not simply for its benefits in raising children (orphanages can do the same, after all, but for the environment in which it raises them. What is the impact on those children and their environment of the behaviour of this hypothetical man?
"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." A victory which Haggard did not win, it seems hardly necessary to add.
This article is so absurd in its moral arguments that I can only conclude that its author is being disingenuous. His politicization of the scandal through his opening reference to the left’s reaction and his closing reference to Joe Lieberman encourage me in this opinion.
Is it worth speculating what kind of piece Frum might have written had Haggard been accused of having sex with a female prostitute? Would he have felt it worth engaging in a game of moral Twister in his diary had events been so? Frum is a political operator and I believe the prompting for this commentary was political expedience. Aside from the absurdity of the arguments presented, what is shocking is the complete omission of sympathy or empathy for Haggard’s wife and children. After all, the justification for outlawing gay marriage is the protection of the family. Here Frum reveals what exactly his agenda is.
In his November 3 piece he directs his attention to the scandal surrounding a highly respected evangelical minister, Ted Haggard, who has stepped down as president of the National Association of Evangelicals amid allegations by a male prostitute, Michael Forest Jones, that Haggard paid him for sex over a 3 year period, and also during the meetings took crystal meth, which was supplied to him by Jones. The scandal is generating such interest because Haggard is one of a number of influential evangelicals with ties to the Bush administration. He is said to have attended the weekly Monday conference calls which the president holds with religious leaders.
Frum’s piece has left me in such a state of bewilderment that I have not composed myself enough yet to be able to write a structured critique of it. Instead I have, in my state of discomposure, appended to his paragraphs my own short rebuttals. Frum’s text is presented in bold. It is entitled “Hypocrites?”
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! At the outset drawing political lines of battle. The left are capable only of reveling in somebody else’s suffering.
In my mind, however, this story highlights a widespread moral assumption that I have never been able to understand.
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? With only the scant outline of their moral lives offered above, who can say? The easiest answer is to say neither of them. But I suppose if, like Frum, you equate morality with traditional values then moral superiority could be claimed by the former man. Frum’s language leaves no doubt as to his opinion on the matter, even before he shares it with his reader. The former is in all other aspects a model of restraint: preaching (this word doesn’t have negative connotations amongst evangelicals), trying, generally encouraging; while the latter is obviously out of control: vilifying and urging.
But what if the second man has gone through the same inner conflict as the first, only at some point he has gone in a different direction? What if the second man has reconciled himself to his homosexuality, choosing not to seek moral guidance exclusively from evangelical interpretations of the Holy Bible, and after long, drawn-out reasoning and soul-searching has honestly come to the conclusion that legalizing (or decrimininalizing) drugs and prostitution is in society’s best interests, that is to say it will make society stabler in the long run? Then how can this man be leading a less moral life than the first one? Well, he could be if he too were lying to his spouse (significant other) and concealing from him a sexual relationship with another man.
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?
And what about the bad effect of his misconduct on his wife and children? Are they supposed to sacrifice themselves for the greater moral good? Were they consulted on this? Are they willing martyrs?
For Frum, there is only one moral authority, the will of God as expressed in the bible and interpreted by endorsed religious leaders. Unendorsed interpretations are of no significance. Such a view-point allows for absolutely no nuance, not even in interpreting its source for its moral principles. It has no time for any of the arguments that suggest that tactics in the war against drugs can be morally questionable. It grants no moral life to prostitutes beyond the immorality of the acts by which they engage in economic endeavour. Nor does it grant any moral life to the homosexual who is, according to Frum, a person merely “inclined” to homosexuality. That is, homosexuality is not an essential part of the psyche, of the emotional, spiritual and intellectual life of the person, rather an external temptation.
After all, the first man may well see his family and church life as his "real" life; and regard his other life as an occasional uncontrollable deviation, sin, and error, which he condemns in his judgment and for which he sincerely seeks to atone by his prayer, preaching, and Christian works. But as we’re being hypothetical here, what of a person who engages in gay sex while believing it sinful and immoral and who seeks atonement through prayer and by ensuring that no other people are hurt by his immoral actions?
Yet it is the first man who will if exposed be held up to the execration of the media, while the second can become a noted public character - and can even hope to get away with presenting himself as an exemplar of ethics and morality.
How does this make moral sense?
Let me put it another way:
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 equalityBut who would have admired them if at the same time they had been keeping slaves?. We admire the leader of a distressed industry who refuses to ask for trade protections and government handouts. But would we admire him if we discovered he was misappropriating funds to weather the economic slump? 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. Trying to score political points again. First, it must be clearly shown that Lieberman’s support for the government is indeed in the national interest and not a betrayal of it. Morally, though, surely the only thing that matters is if Lieberman honestly believes he is doing the right thing.
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? Since when was committing adultery and concealing from your spouse a 3 year arrangement for sex with a prostitute a sign of moral integrity? And surely marriage is to be defended not simply for its benefits in raising children (orphanages can do the same, after all, but for the environment in which it raises them. What is the impact on those children and their environment of the behaviour of this hypothetical man?
"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." A victory which Haggard did not win, it seems hardly necessary to add.
This article is so absurd in its moral arguments that I can only conclude that its author is being disingenuous. His politicization of the scandal through his opening reference to the left’s reaction and his closing reference to Joe Lieberman encourage me in this opinion.
Is it worth speculating what kind of piece Frum might have written had Haggard been accused of having sex with a female prostitute? Would he have felt it worth engaging in a game of moral Twister in his diary had events been so? Frum is a political operator and I believe the prompting for this commentary was political expedience. Aside from the absurdity of the arguments presented, what is shocking is the complete omission of sympathy or empathy for Haggard’s wife and children. After all, the justification for outlawing gay marriage is the protection of the family. Here Frum reveals what exactly his agenda is.
posted by purefunction at 6:28 PM
4 comments
