Globe and Mail Update

"The irony that gay sex should take down the evangelical leader [Ted Haggard] just as evangelicals are entering the battle over gay marriage is surely enough to send us all to our prayer chairs," Christian journalist Lorna Dueck writes today in a Web-exclusive commentary The evangelical leadership has a lot to answer for.

"Perhaps . . . there is something about gay marriage and free will we need to be considering."

Editor's Note: We were pleased to have Ms. Dueck taking questions throughout the day on her column. This was not one of our usual hour-long live discussions. Rather, this was a question-and-answer session. You may continue the conversation by leaving a comment using our comment function. Your questions and Ms. Dueck's answers appear at the bottom of this page.

Ms. Dueck also writes: "In the short term, it's only fair that a watching world looks closely at what repair work is being done for these evangelicals, who do, after all, want the whole world to follow the Jesus they do."

"I, for one, think there should be a public statement on behalf of the National Association of Evangelicals, not just from Mr. Haggard's church."

"I also think the gay community is owed an apology for our duplicity on this issue — our own leadership couldn't wrestle out the biblical ideals of sexuality we want to legislate on."

Editor's Note: We will follow the same policy for this Q&A as we do for our normal hour-long discussions. globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on Ms. Dueck, Globe journalists or other participants in these discussions, questions/comments that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Barry Green: Sorry, Lorna, gay sex didn't "take down" Haggard. Sanctimonious judgmentalism did. Haggard was born gay, just as surely as you were born with your race, sex, height and hair colour.

If you're looking for a Christian answer to his ironically self-directed prejudice, then look to the original teachings of Jesus, who accepted people for who they are. Haggard's downfall mirrors the basic problem with the current fundamentalist movement. Instead of staying true to Jesus's socially uplifting principles, Haggard and his ilk have focused instead on Paul's schismatic dogma of self-righteous intolerance. Jesus taught us to love one another not judge one another.

Lorna Dueck: Hi, Barry. You are correct to say that Jesus did accept people for who they are. But this same Jesus and the "socially uplifting principles" he taught was judgmental to the behaviour of the religious establishment of his day and was also directive to the behaviours of people. Jesus said plenty about how we should act.

The fact that we're having this discussion over something like the Rev. Haggard situation likely indicates that, unfortunatley, the loudest voices you've heard from the church are the schismatic, intolerant ones.

David Woods: Ms. Dueck quotes the wife of Ted Haggard as saying: "Every man, woman and child needs a Saviour."

Needs a Saviour for what?

To save themselves from being lying hypocrites? To save themselves from treating the gay community in an intolerant, prejudiced manner? To save themselves from being cold-hearted, narrow-minded people who refuse to accept that every person deserves to experience and express love with another person, regardless of whether it's within a heterosexual or homosexual relationship?

Religious beliefs in this case are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem.

Lorna Dueck: Yes, David, that's exactly why we need a Saviour. To keep us from being lying hypocrites, to keep us from being ourselves, to keep us from being cold-hearted.

I'm sorry that people like me who carry the name Christian have hurt you.

It's hard to explain what changes go on in the human pysche when we ask God to rule it, or be the bottom line on it. But from experience, I can only say that any transformation of the rotten self is short-lived, and Saviour is a daily need.

Eye Sore, Dog Pound, Alta.: Consider the case of TV evangelist Jimmy Swaggert. He was big in the 1980s, very big, then fell from grace. Reason: He solicited the services of prostitutes in New Orleans' red-light district.

His moment of tearful repentance, which was broadcast on TV and seen by millions, seem to put "paid" to that sin of the flesh. But then he was guilty of backsliding, returned to whoremongering, which put "paid" to his career as a TV preacher. Now he pastors a small church in the Deep South. The last we heard from him on the 6 o'clock news was a deeply hateful statement about Islam being a very bad religion.

While Swaggert's whoremongering did in his TV preacher's career, millions of evangelicals are OK, seemingly, with Swaggert-type hatemongering toward Muslims, since no one took the ol' boy to task, that I know of. A case in point, Franklin Graham, recently seen preaching in Winnipeg, referred to Islam as a "wicked" religion. And Graham is as big today as Swaggert was in the 1980s.

So: Anti-Muslim hate-mongering is OK, while whoremongering is not? Is that the bottom line for evangelicals?

Lorna Dueck: Hello, Eye Sore. There really isn't a "bottom line" on evangelicals that we can hear in the media.

In fact, the longer I'm in the media on the subject of Christianity, the more I wonder if faith can really be understood through this vehicle. At best, media offers a coughing glimpse into "what was that???" and acts as an idea starter on these topics of religion.

As for those of us who have TV broadcasts, don't let it fool you into thinking that just because we're talking, we're correct. I will decline comment on the Winnipeg remarks of Franklin Graham because I'm not familiar with them, but I am aware he wrote directly to The Winnipeg Free Press about it after the event.

John Chuckman, Toronto: "Sin" is not a subject for a national newspaper, nor should a televangelist be given a blog.

Lorna Dueck: Oh come on, John. I think "sin" makes it into every story in the paper.

How about these headlines "Hussein sentenced to hang", "Deadbeat jailbird's unmitigated chutzpah", "Edmonton gets more cash for homeless shelters", "$50,000 reward set in slaying of student", "Remote Ojibwa reserve lies in desperate limbo."

It would be dull reading without it.

Tour de France: I watched Rev. Haggard's ordeal with interest and dismay. Interest, because of the obvious hypocrisy of, unfortunately, the evangelical movement's attitude towards people who don't necessarily share their beliefs, i.e. gay persons/pro-choice. Dismay, because the church and its followers have not repented of their sins of throwing the first stone. [The evangelical movement should focus] on Christ's value of acceptance, peace, and fight against poverty. As a Christian, I feel increasingly disillusioned with the movement. What do you think needs to happen within the evangelical movement to be more in touch with Jesus? Thanks for your time.

Lorna Dueck: Hi Tour de France: I think the best help for those of us in the evangelical movement to be more in touch with Jesus is to be reading the New Testament daily, specifically meditating on something from the four Gospels, and hanging out with non evangelicals as much as possible. It keeps us more realistic.

Raison d'etre, New York, N.Y.: Hi, Lorna. I used to be an evangelical but was turned off by the anti-intellectualism of the movement. I find the evangelical denial of "homosexual orientation" to be intellectually dishonest. From Ted Haggard's letter, it sounds like he's been attracted to men his entire adult life but has desperately and unsuccessfully tried to suppress this part of himself. I hope that his very public admission will allow Christian fundamentalists to grapple with homosexuality in a way that will produce a more nuanced understanding of it for them. Do you think Ted Haggard's story will force evangelicals to conclude that a homosexual orientation might be a permanent human attribute rather than a disease that needs God's healing? Just as they would not pray that an amputee grows a leg back, could they possibly accept some people will not become "straight?"

Lorna Dueck: Hi Raison d'etre: Yes, I do think that discussion will increase as a result of Rev. Haggard's confession, and in about a year, he may be one who is forefront in the talks. I find there are evangelicals who would understand that homosexual orientation is part of the human condition. Just as heterosexual orientation is a part of the human condition…all sexual orientations are invited to come to a biblical understanding of what it means to live out sexuality. So much pain has been caused by a misuse of God's intentions for heterosexuality, nothing new in that is there.

Brian Sexsmith, Toronto: It has always been a mystery to me why a complete stranger, perhaps thousands of miles away, would have any interest in who I choose to marry (so long as we are consenting adults), let alone feel they have the right to decide against our wishes. Could you please explain how our personal lives are their business?

Lorna Dueck: Hi Brian Sexmith: Why is your personal life "our" business? It's not. We should stay out. But on this subject of marriage, marriage is a public policy issue, so it is fair that its open to debate on changing the definitions of it. I thought the 2006 Massey Lecture Series, "Ethical Imagination: Journeys of the Human Spirit" with Dr. Margaret Sommerville was very good on this. It was in this paper on Oct. 21.

David B.: Lorna, I'll be upfront on my position on gay issues. I believe the gay lifestyle is wrong and forbidden by the Bible. Now that that's out of the way, allow me to comment and then ask a question. It's interesting how various people can themselves be sanctimonious in their judgment of this fellow. I won't get into the double standard, which is propagated by the condemnation that is directed at this guy while at the same time lying, deception, greed and self-involvement are celebrated as positive character traits in our society. The notion that this guy was in a public position of trust is a red-herring. Each one of us has personal accountability. Period. And in that sense, this man is unquestionably guilty! What I am most interested in is how his own church handles this. We often forget that the Bible provides very specific direction concerning how to deal with sin in the church. And it can be very tough discipline indeed. Whether the Bible's advice here differs from what our society thinks is appropriate is irrelevant to me. I don't expect non-Christians to accept it. While I care about how my faith is perceived, in the end, I have to remain true to the Bible's instruction. Now, finally to my question: In your view, has Haggard's church done it right, according to your interpretation of scripture?

Lorna Dueck: Hi David B: Yes - Rev. Haggard's church was correct to have him fired. It sounds like they'll continue to be friends, but he has lost his ability to be a leader there.

Rob Misek, Whitby, Ont.: As the world continues on its downward spiral, the solution becomes clearer. Atheists among us would like to eliminate all beliefs but they can't explain why they believe they don't need beliefs. This is gibberish. This group will fail to influence the majority of people whose religion is the basis for their values and perception of good versus evil. We need to share the perception of good versus evil and the values that support it. This will require the major religions around the world to work out their differences. Currently, extremists believe the words written by men -- prophets or not -- to be the absolute truth. These written works are in conflict while the truth isn't. Unless the divine intention for the human race is conflict, some words must be changed to better express the true intent. Religious leaders need to join in a covenant of the truth. It will require religious leaders to have faith that the truth will preserve all those tenets of religion that are important while being the crucible for lies. They need to put the books and extremism aside, and discuss the intent of their beliefs. These leaders claim to be men of peace. The majority of people on earth believe this. It's time for them to prove it. Governments need to recognize this covenant also. The religious leaders will need their support. Government can't separate religion from the state any better than atheists could. There is no easy solution. People won't like the idea that some of their beliefs may be rewritten even if the intent remains. Our egos will heal quickly in an environment of peace. Will it be soon enough?

Lorna Dueck: Hi Rob - sorry, I can't see that being a workable solution, it takes out the Divine and replaces it with our own consensus. I couldn't trust that, we have too fickle a track record.

Kris Dymtrenko, Toronto: The last time I recall such a similar scandal, involving a high-profile figure who became a symbol for his causes, was Sven Robinson's ring theft. Do you feel that Mr. Haggard is being treated similarly to Mr. Robinson, both in the media and by public opinion? Is it fair to suggest that we are now less forgiving of the hypocritical actions of evangelical Protestants than of any other group? And if so, should Christians, whose apostles suffered violent physical persecution (as opposed to mild media criticism), accept their lot without complaint?

Lorna Dueck: Hi Kris - Yes, I do think there is a similarity in treatment to the ring theft scandal, and yes, when the shoe fits, well, it fits. We need to own this is the reality created, and it must be an enormously painful time for Rev. Haggard, his family and friends. Do you think God moved this into place? Is it an act of God's judgment ? I think so. There is much biblical evidence that judgment is part of the character of God. Makes me want sneak away and clean up my confession list right now — by "the list" I mean things I do that keep God's best from coming out in who I am. Our relationships and the world is a better place when we do that.

K. Gibson: Lorna, thank you for your willingness to discuss this issue here. The "Saviour" previously mentioned failed to "save" Haggard from the very things you agreed one needs a Saviour for. As a genuine searcher for spiritual wholeness through Christianity, the fall of this man tempts the question: Why?

Lorna Dueck: Hi K. Gibson-- That's the million dollar question I'm sure Rev. Haggard's children and wife are asking now. Why didn't the Saviour "save" ?? I think there must be a clue of this failure in the secrecy of his actions. Alone, writing material at a hotel, no one bugging him. You are only as accountable as you want to be, and clearly something failed in Rev. Haggard's processes here. If you go through the New Testament and circle every time it says "one another" in it, you'll be amazed at how connected the model for success is. If we really live out the "love one another" the Saviour told us to, there are safeguards, encouragements, and burden bearing in those relationships that helps us be "saved" from our destructive habits. It's a vastly under utilized spiritual skill. I saw it best in the Amish a few weeks ago in Pennsylvania. They can respond with spiritual health to their crisis because they are so connected to supporting each other. On our own, it's pretty hard to model Christ. I think that lack of honesty in his friendships cost Rev. Haggard his job.

Mike B., Dundas, Ont.: It seems to me that a lot of what hurts church leaders in the long run is the need to appear "sinless." This leads to them not seeking help if they face difficulties. What can be done to help church leaders become more accountable and transparent?

Lorna Dueck: Hi Mike B, When the job is all about spiritual responsibilities, work duties could have a spiritual mentor and sounding board of accountability. It takes courage for those people to ask the right questions, transparency can be faked.

The Philosopher King:As a Cabbalist, I have always been keenly aware that the Bible is laden with powerful ideals expressed through analogy and metaphor. Jesus often used parables to illustrate his point in a way that intentionally defied literal interpretation. Having said this, in all my studies of the Bible, I have seen NO justification coming from Christ for hating gays, or denying them the loving sacrament of marriage. His judgments were most often levelled at the clergy and the rich for using literal interpretations of scripture to control people's actions and flout the intent that so clearly exists in the principles and ideals that flow from creation. Teaching man's law as God's law as it were. I'm interested to know whether you think the church itself will learn anything from this unfortunate event in terms of the seeds of intolerance that led to its culmination. To clarify, I am wondering if, from your perspective, there will be a willingness of the church to accept its own blame in this situation. It seems to me that this man did not come to his position in a vacuum, but through the vehicle of the church itself. That a man in such a state of denial was the voice through which this church spoke, surely speaks to the level of self-awareness within the church? That as their leader he voiced their hatred of those who were just like him is ironic in the extreme. Almost biblical in fact. One should think this would be a lesson about the virtues of tolerance. But will they see it this way? We are left to wonder how great a spiritual leader this man could have been, had he had not been in fear of his own nature, a nature that he was taught to hate by the religion he served, not the God he loved. What light can you shine on this issue? Can the church of my youth ever make peace with this?

Lorna Dueck: Hi Philosopher King, I don't have any evidence that Rev. Haggard voiced "hatred of gays," do you? This story, though, does give us much on the virtues of being a people known by love, as Jesus directed. That's different than tolerance. There are so many things we should not tolerate in the world — 15 million orphans from AIDS, 100 million people living on less than $1 day; you know the list goes on and on. I'm not comfortable promoting the "virtues of tolerance," it's love we're after. Let's not water it down to tolerance.

Edward Prior, Montreal: Perhaps the most important aspect of this case is the fact that -- unlike other evangelical scandals -- the exposure of this one was politically motivated. The escort who brought Haggard's exploits to light has been very consistent in saying that he did so last week because of the U.S. midterm elections and Haggard's stance against same-sex marriage, which is on the ballot in Colorado. The civil liberties of gays and lesbians have long been under attack by the religious right in the U.S., and evangelicals have used the threat of the so-called "gay agenda" to win past elections. My question to you is this: Both in the U.S. and increasingly now here in Canada, what good can you see arising from the Christian fundamentalist movement's growing influence on politics when there is supposed to be clear separation of church and state?

Lorna Dueck: Hi Edward, At its best this kind of involvement is just a balanced reflection of the composition of democracy, it reflects the people of the country, and if they are living out the ideals of Christianity, our public policies should reflect justice for all and compassion for the poor and sick and care for the world. Christian involvement in politics has a history of doing this, for example Baptist Pastor Tommy Douglas was deeply motivated by his faith in the social reforms which he brought to Canada.

At worst, this kind of involvement would divide neighbours, breed misunderstanding. There are many Christians in public office quietly working in a way that no one would think they were "fundamentalist."

I don't know many Christians in Canada who describe themselves as "fundamentalist" because the term in the public mind has strayed so far from its original intent. I believe it originated in 1895 as Christians agreed on five "fundamentals" ; inerrancy of Scripture, divinity of Jesus, the Virgin birth, Jesus' death on the cross as a substitute for our sins, and his physical resurrection and return. The term has often been misused to describe fanatical belief, and it doesn't sit well but seems to be a label that sticks in the media.

Graham Westwood, Toronto: It seems to me that there are just two emotions -- fear and love -- and that the purpose of life is to move from one to the other. I would suggest that this is the core message of all great religions, including Christianity. Why then do evangelicals seem to wallow in fear, in being righteous, in judging others? Why must they scream their truth so loudly? Is it perhaps that they are afraid -- afraid of being truly loving, of truly serving others. In my humble reading of the Bible, I see no reference to building fabulous gilded churches. I see no reference to acquiring material goods. I also see no reference to protecting the unborn, to AIDS or to condemning others. However, I see thousands of references to serving, to looking after the poor and the sick. I think it is time for evangelicals to get very quiet, to listen to the wind, to listen to their hearts. God does not shout. He whispers. If you want to hear what he is saying, you must listen. Turn down the volume, get humble, serve -- and then perhaps you can become the truly loving people you purport to be.

Lorna Dueck: Hi Graham — I agree with you. I've said enough already.

Lorna Dueck is the host of Listen Up TV, a spiritual perspective on current events seen Sundays on Global TV, and weekly on CTS, Salt and Light TV, and Christian Channel TV.