The New York Times didn't cover the Haggard story yesterday, but there was a triumphalist Op-Ed piece this morning by Dan Savage. This seems appropriate since the real unfolding of this event has fallen off the news radar. The response of New Life Church and Haggard himself doesn't fit the popular philosophy of identity either; so, it has become fodder for opinion only. I suspect the only news items we might hear now are further disclosures of impropriety, recriminations, and defections.

Savage writes: "Even those delighted by Mr. Haggard's disgrace — disclosure: I count myself among their number — ache for his five children, all suffering now for the sins of their father. And let me be clear: their fathers sin is not his sexual orientation, but his deceit and hypocrisy. His sin is the closet."

Let me qualify the following analysis by saying I am not a fan of mega-churches or mainstream evangelicals that court the power brokers in DC. Ted Haggard's ministry is not the kind I would heartily endorse and I believe the loss of his job and his public shame are just consequences for his sins. Nevertheless, I think it is worth comparing Haggard's contrition and Savage's delight. Savage is delighted that Haggard's true identity is out of the closet. In these days of open sexuality, only hypocrites are in the closet. Haggard's hypocrisy consists of preaching against homosexuality all the while being homosexual. His disgrace (literally, removal from grace) consists in the revelation of what he is. Savage's delight, therefore, consists in Haggard no longer being able to persecute those that are like him. If he is existentially honest, he will join the ranks of the persecuted and denounce those who still preach against homosexuality. If he is not existentially honest, at least the exposure will silence him since no one will take him seriously anymore.

On the other hand, Haggard's contrition frames his sexual desires and addiction in the figure of "darkness". He calls this part of his personality a "dark side". Haggard's metaphor suggests only a partial aspect of his being is the doer of these deeds. Savage's "closet" suggests the whole true being is in the dark. The closet is dark, but the darkness of the closet issues from the fact that you are hiding, not that what you are hiding is dark in and of itself. "[Haggard's] sin is not his sexual orientation." Having this side of his personality exposed to the light, Haggard still calls it "dark".

Does this mean that Haggard is perpetuating his hypocrisy by continuing to deny his authentic self? No. It means that Ted Haggard has a different view of personal identity: viz., his identity is in Christ. The message of Christianity is that God does not look on you for what you are, but for who Jesus Christ is. Haggard's new identity is in the God-man, not in the sum of his choices, as existentialist philosophy would have it. Haggard's identity in Christ gives him the freedom to thank God for his accuser. Why? Because God used Mike Jones to bring Ted Haggard closer to Him, to bring what Haggard is in greater conformity to who God is. I think this is the strongest explanation for Haggard defending the participation of the Metropolitan Church in his ecumenical Easter service. Knowing the struggle with non-conformity to God's will experientially, Haggard could empathize with those facing similar struggles. It is in the spirit of this empathy that Haggard appeals to his former congregation to pray for his accusers.

Between Haggard and Savage, we have two conflicting views of identity. If you don't believe that Christ is God in the flesh, who died for our sins, then, of course, Haggard's view is not going to even register, but apart from whether you believe this or not, ask yourself which view is more conducive to social peace?

Savage's view of identity gives us authentic selves. What could possibly mediate the belligerence between two or more authentic selves? In this view, there is no higher principle than authenticity, so if one authentic self is despicable to another authentic self, they have no means outside of self that can settle the matter. The only way to secure peace is through the collective, coercive might of like-minded selves. This ugly fact is easily despised when the like-mindedness is racial, but not so much when it is ideological. If identity is existential authenticity, there will never be an end to fighting and war.

On the other hand, Haggard's view of identity is in a higher person. He belongs to a community of people that collectively, in their mundane individuality, have all the traits of the authentic selves that exist outside of the community. It is on this basis, that there is (or should be) empathy. Christian identity does not allow for individual superiority. What we are, in and of ourselves, is absolutely no better than anyone else. We don't delight in the disgrace of others, but hope that others will find delight in grace.

Christians call this the Gospel, the "Good News"; the mainstream media won't regard it is as news at all.