Ted Haggard, Merle Haggard, and Joseph Stalin
Mama TriedThe first I remember knowin' was that lonesome whistle blowin'
And a youngun's dream of growin' up to ride.
On a freight train leavin' town, not knowin' where I was bound
No one could steer me right, but mama tried.
Was the only rebel child from a family meek and mild
Mama seemed to know what lay in store
In spite of all my Sunday learnin'
For the bad I kept on turnin' and mama couldn't hold me anymore.
And I turned 21 in prison, doin' life without parole
No one could steer me right, but mama tried, mama tried
Mama tried to raise me better, but her pleadin' I denied
That leaves only me to blame cause mama tried.
Dear old daddy rest his soul, left my mom a heavy load
She tried so very hard to fill his shoes
Workin' hours without rest, wanted me to have the best
Oh she tried to raise me right, but I refused.
And I turned 21 in prison, doin' life without parole
No one could steer me right, but mama tried, mama tried
Mama tried to raise me better, but her pleadin' I denied
That leaves only me to blame cause mama tried.
This song was written by country music legend Merle Haggard in 1968. It was one of his greatest hits. It also has something very profound to say about the Ted Haggard situation and the state of Christianity in general.
Christianity has made the decision that it will preach law over gospel. What I mean by that is that Christianity favors the moral improvement of their congregation over the proclamation that "if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:1-2). Our pulpits overflow with well-intentioned exhortations to do that which is right and good. The only problem is that these exhortations do not give the strength to do what they require. In fact, they tear down and render people defeated. The gospel is then is not preached in such a way as to inform them that Christ did it for them. And it is enough.
This is seen in our song above. The law (Mama) pleads, exhorts, and instructs, but the author rebels, flees, and increases his sin. He then ends up in a totally desperate situation. This is what happens when preaching becomes instruction. Either, the listener flees Christianity or her personality splits like an amoeba. Her public persona is holy, but her private reality is unevangelized, unabsolved, and is left to the doomed fate of fending for itself.
The second part is what happened to Ted Haggard.
"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life," he said.
- Ted Haggard
In his world of Christianity, Ted Haggard believed he could not bring his darker reality to God. He believed God loved only the lovely and holy. So, he kept it all patted down until it exploded. Somebody needs to re-read Luke 15:2 where the Pharisees complain that Jesus "receives sinners and eats with them". "Sinner" means Christian as well as non-Christian.
Now, there was a vast social experiment that required what it could not generate. It was called communism. Now, it was a worthy idea to have everyone selflessly working for a common goal. The only problem was that the "human spirit" (the bound will) could not possibly work for anything other than self-preservation. Coercion set in that quickly became violent. Twenty million dead later, we have learned a lesson in political science, economics, and sociology but not theology. The only thing that produces what it requires is the unmitigated, unmerited, and free gospel of Jesus Christ dying for sinners.
If you preach or are studying to preach, I invite you to grapple with this idea and reduce the number of people who say, "Mama Tried."
posted by David Browder at 11/12/2006 10:31:00 PM
10 Comments:
Somehow, David, you just must teach future ministers of the gospel when you finish. But, I suppose that is up the the Holy Spirit.
Well said, David!! All of life's deep theological dilemas can be resolved by country music! Hope you will be home for Thanksgiving - we miss you.
The song is about a man "turing 21 in prison doing life without parole" who admits that he rejected his "meek and mild" mother and chose a path that led to destruction. It is about a rebellious child who became a man and finally has the strength to admit that he, and no one else, is to blame for his state.
You seem to be reversing the whole song! In your view, it is the "meek and mild" single mother's fault for tying "to raise [him] better" rather than introducing him to Gospel freedom. Are you saying that with a proper presentation of the Gospel, the "one and only rebel child" would not have rebelled?
This song is not about the opressiveness of law- it is about the eaxact opposite. It is about the false freedom of rebellion v. the true freedom of law.
It is not always, in every situation, our psychic reaction to the oppresiveness of rules that cause our suffering. Sometimes it is simply what we do- sin as horrible sin- that causes our pain.
Mama tried to raise me better, but her pleading, I denied.
That leaves only me to blame 'cos Mama tried.
Allow me to better decipher what I was trying to say then.
Nobody is trying to pin the responsibility on anyone other than the singer of the song. We can go ahead and say that with authority. Otherwise, I would have probably edited a few verses ;-)
I'll expound the song in the spirit that caught my eye. The singer is obviously the sinner in this song and Mama is the preacher. The singer is acting up (progressively we can assume because he is growing up). Now, mama is telling him what is right and good. Totally right and good. You cannot help but love mama in this song.
What mama doesn't realize is that her admonitions and pleadings to change do not engender the change that they desire (and are right and good). The boy doesn't have a father apparently. He either died or left them. So the boy is acting out.
Mama focuses on the outward actions of the boy's acting up instead of his condition. His condition is that of a broken-hearted little boy who misses/is hurt by/hates his missing father. He needs unconditional love in his pain and he is receiving correction (3rd use of the law).
We know for Rom 5:20 that the law increases the trespass, so there you have it. The boy needs the law AND the gospel. He needed absolution and blessing at a young age so there was nothing to rebel about. We know he was rebelling against something. It is the law.
You're right. It is not about the oppression of rules that causes suffering. It is the oppression of rules that is placed on top of human suffering that is harmful. That is the majority of preaching we hear. Sufferers show up to church and have exhortations piled up on top of them. That is oppressive.
A name needs to be given to their suffering (proper use of the law) and then they need to be told that Christ died for sinners. Christ eats with sinners (Lk 15:2) Christ welcomes sinners unconditionally because He paid their price for them. Full stop.
Thank you for responding, you are very generous with your time!
First off, I think his father died since it says, "Dear old Daddy, rest his soul..." and it does not sound like he bitter towards the man.
"He needed absolution and blessing at a young age so there was nothing to rebel about. We know he was rebelling against something. It is the law."
Do you not think that some people are simply selfish? Can't a man rob another man simply because he wants his stuff, not because he was oppressed by the law. His "rebellion" was against a world that did not conform to his whims, not against the oppressiveness of law.
John,
I think you're probably right about the father. He was probably a beloved figure who died.
I also think you are totally right about selfishness. It is totally about the bound will. The idea that we have free will, but that it will always choose sin, so it is in bondage. Sin being our desire to be God.
It manifests itself in theft, murder, adultery, workaholism, self-righteousness and all other things an assertion of the self would engender.
Since it is a Merle Haggard song and not Scripture, the analogy does break down after a while, but something very specific caught my eye.
It is the idea of warranting love. Conditional love, if you will. If love is given conditional to the person's loveliness, it is earned. For those who are unable to be lovely (I read everyone into this), then all the "Sunday learnin'" about morality really does not address it. It frustrates the desire for love (I'm speaking a little untheological here and potentially a little mushily. Please forgive.) If love will not be given to me in my unloveliness, then it is made all the worse.
What this young boy needed was someone to love him in all of his hurt (even the spiteful, thumbsucking hurt). When unconditional love finally occurs, there is a breakthrough. I no longer have to assert myself. I am loved as I am (not in the liberal sense, but in the sense that someone else took my punishment, etc.).
That is the picture of Christ on the cross. I am loved regardless of what I do because someone else took my place. When I understand the depth of my need, that unmerited favor is the change agent.
Thus, I saw this song as a well-intentioned mother trying to change her son, but using the wrong approach. You can't blame her. We all default to the law as a change agent. It just never works.
Again, I love the comments. This really allows me to engage further with the material and I am grateful!
David
I'm new to your blog and I read your piece about grace and law and how you related it to "Mama Tried". Do you know what finally made Haggard turn his life around? I recently read about him and I think you'd be interested to know that it wasn't grace. It was, in fact, the most extreme example of the law! All this to say, I just don't think that "uncond't love" is the only "change agent." And I don't think Haggard would think so either.
Anonymous,
Welcome to the site and I hope you continue to post!
I would love to hear the Haggard story, but I was really using the song as an illustration and not so much as a proof text for systematic theology. That said, I might put Haggard on the grace side, but that is really putting words into the man's mouth.
The thing about preaching grace is that it infers law in its proper context. Grace is "unmerited favor." The "unmerited" part is the first part of preaching law and gospel. The law does not have the power to produce what it commands.
Remember the prayer of Augustine: "Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire."
The past week or so has been really stimulating with all of the new posters! Thanks for taking the time to do it!
David
The point seems to me to be not that the law as a corrective produces failure, while grace produces success, but that grace gives failure a place to land. Didn't Jesus supposedly say, somewhere, "if your brother sins against you seventy times seven times in one day, forgive him"? Obviously, in that illustration, grace does not produce very "good" results, but that is not the point.
I think you're speaking my language :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home