Ted Haggard: "I am a deceiver and a liar"
At the morning service in New Life Church, Colorado, this letter from Pastor Ted Haggard was read to the congregation, and from his wife, Gayle Haggard, was also read aloud. Ted Haggard has been dismissed from his leadership role in the church and has agreed to work with three senior evangelical leaders, who will assess his "mental, spritual, emotional, and physical life ... with the goal of healing and restoration."
In other words, the pastor has admitted that his earlier denials were fabrications and that Mike Jones's accusations are true. Some reading this story might say, "Well, he's gay, isn't he? He's been married all these years, but he's gay." But Ted Haggard is part of conservative evangelical movement which denies the existence of "gay people" -- homosexuality, for them, is not an identity someone can have, but a temptation someone can fall into." Which is why conservative evangelicals resist the idea that homosexuality is innate and regularly emphasise their view that homosexuality is a "lifestyle" and a matter of personal "choice".
A growing body of psychobiological scholarship is challenging the idea that homosexuality is merely behavioural choice, and many other commentators -- some for theological reasons -- would argue that a gay person's sexuality is a fundamental aspect of his or her identity, to be respected and protected. These competing perpsectives carry us into one of America's most entrenched culture wars, and the Ted Haggard affair is an eve of election battle in that war.
By his actions yesterday, Pastor Haggard has attempted to protect his future role within American evangelicalism. I expect he'll now write a bestselling book about his experience; he may even co-author that book with his wife, Gayle. After therapy, prayer and ministry from Dr James Dobson, one of new counsellors, I think it's likely that Ted Haggard will tour American churches selling his book and speaking about his restoration and recovery. (We may even see a book written by Mike Jones revealing details of his monthly "drug-fuelled" encounters with Pastor Ted.) Conservative evangelicals will be impressed by Haggard's story of transformation and re-sanctification; while others will wonder how he can continue to delude himself so comprehensively. The warring sides having regrouped, the culture war will continue on another front.
Comments
Painful. But fakery is nothing new to evangelicalism, and, in my judgement, some level of facade is often the norm. Ted Haggard is a perfect example of the flaws that lie at the heart of evangelicalism in any case, and, while it's painful, it's almost energising to see the effects of truth in action. Evangelicalism is full of people living lies, and it is all but revitalising to hear the glass that surrounds it crack.
At the same time, evangelicalism is also full of good people with good intentions, and this will be devastating to their sense of trust. It's possible that Haggard will write a book about this and be accepted by his congregation and others back into the evangelical fold, but remember this: they've been taught by a hypocrite to condemn rather than forgive.
I find particularly fascinating the way in which evangelical Christians were all too eager to emphasize Ted Haggard's public admission of guilt, and their haste for things to return to 'business as usual'. This completely misses first, the fact that Haggard's admissions were staggered (and still incomplete?), and second, the way in which church structures *created* Ted Haggard's repression and subsequent downfall, as it were.
I found disturbing, too, Gayle Haggard's comment "My test has begun, watch me." - this hasn't received much comment, but it seems to me particularly expressive of what I can only term the 'panopticon' mindset (to borrow Foucault's use of the term) instilled in so many conservative Christians - that their lives must be lives of witness and that they must be paragons of virtue as such, living proof of God's activity in the world. One can't help but feel that the motivation of living a life so that it can be held up to public scrutiny is a right regular recipe for psychological disaster.
William
You say that a growing body of psychobiological and theological opinion suggests homosexuality is a fixed part of a personality.
But this is the same thing as saying that most scientists and theologians say it is not, which is certainly the current reality. Are you living up to the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú obligation on impartiality here?
Kinsey found a huge proportion of men only temporarily engaged in homosexuality, sometimes for years. And I regulalry see reports in the media of high profile people who either become gay or straight. Peter Tatchell says for this reason he believes homosexuality is a choice.
I do not believe that all gay people have the simple freedom to "choose" in this matter but I don't think you are helping a fair and open discussion by clouding the issue here by your narrow comments.
Incidentally, while I know nothing of Haggard and do not defend him, God is on record as forgiving Christian leaders who engage in sexual sin.
King David of Israel committed adultery with Bathsheba and then murdered her husband. The Press then uncovered his sin (Nathanial the prophet) and he was exposed to the nation.
God records the penetential psalms that David then wrote as a guide to repentence for those who fall in sin and to affirm his forgiveness for them. However this sin dogged the rest of David's life and tore his family apart, resulting in the death of two of his sons.
This is what the hymn Amazing Grace is celebrating, God's amazing unmertited forgiveness for all who genuinely seek it. Newtown who wrote the hymn was a barbaric slave trader who became a preacher. Amazing Grace is not just a meaningless Sunday School rhyme but something we all need, myself included. That was why Christ went to the cross for us.
For the record, I am only too aware I am fallen being with fallen sexuality, like us all.
PB
Hi there
I think we often get the impression that homosexuality is the only thing that the gay lobby disagrees with Christians on.
Maybe some of you could enlighten me a bit;-
1) Do you believe the bible is the inspired word of God, as it claims.
2) That Christ is the Son of God.
3) That he was sacrificed on a cross to give us all forgiveness.
4) That we cant earn our way to heaven but must depend on the grace of Christ?
5) That the bible teaches that sex should only be with one partner for life ie NOT serial monogamy?
6) Do you believe a loving God has a right to authority in every aspect of your life?
I think my point is this;- it is often assumed that homosexuality is the only real issue we disagree on.
But I suspect that the gay lobby rejects the entire biblical worldview.
And perhaps the most key point, I suspect that the gay lobby totally rejects any right from God to have authority in their lives, to give accountabily to Him; I suspect that the issue for the gay lobby is not that they simply disagree with conservative Christians on the interpretation of the bible on homosexuality but, more fundamentally, that they reject the right of the loving God of the bible to be Lord of any aspect of their lives?
Am I wrong here, interested to hear some views...
PB
PS William, ref homosexuality causes, I think it was the pschiatrist Bieber who, despite extensive resaerch, could not find a gay man who had a healthy, loving engaging relationship with his father, though he did not suggest this would be the only caustive factor.
PB- I'll bite... a little.
You are wrong in your point (1): the bible does not claim to be the inspired Word of God. 2 Timothy speaks of 'Scripture' as being the inspired Word of God, but Scripture was the Old Testament alone at the time 2 Timothy was written, and then not the OT we know today. Even if you somehow come up with a claim that the entire bible is the inspired Word of God, you are saying nothing about its infallibility nor its inerrancy, both of which are evangelical inventions that the bible never claim for itself.
It's also worth noting that your point (5) ignores the polygamy practiced throughout most of biblical history. Monogamy was clearly NOT the only acceptable form of sexual relationship in the bible.
John
Will return when I have time.
PB
John
The entire content and attitude of your post suggests I was right on the button in post 4.
ref scripture, google;- Dr Ivan Panin bible code, and then come to me again.
Perhaps the real reason you equivocate is because you want nothing to do with God, not because you dont believe the bible.
ref polygamy, God explicitly instituted regular marriage in genesis.
It was regularly affirmed elsewhere throughout the OT and NT.
Nowhere was polygamy endorsed, rather tolerated. And if you read it again you will see that everyone who practised it had their lives destroyed by sexual sin eg Kings David and Solomon. It appears that God recorded this blatant fact as an example to us all.
The qualifications of a church leader in the NT are that they must be "the husband of one wife".
I read an interesting book recently which suggested that basically we aspire to one of two Gods and their related societies; Baal or Jehovah.
Each society reflects the character of its God. This is biblical history.
Baal advocates a pagan-type anarchy, where everyone worships their own personal god, makes up their own rules. Baal is part of nature and man, therefore man can worship creation, himself and his own bodily desires, ie sexual abandon, drugs, drunkeness etc.
No rules apply to everyone therefore, might becomes right, and inequalities mount. Violence, disorder and pleasure seeking dominate.
Under Jehovah, common standards apply to all. There is only one God to worship and he is no respecter of persons. Only God is worshipped and his standards, not pleasure, are the rule.
I suspect that if all debates on this blog were seen through this prism there would actually be little need for further debate, opinion or confusion.
Interestingly, the world system the bible attacks is known as Babylon, denoting confusion.
PB
William
I have to challenge again your suggestions that homosexuality is fixed.
John Moss from Culture Club, Peter Mandelson's ex-partner and Peter Tatchell's ex-partner all went straight.
I saw a documentary recently about US prisons where the men were openly admitting that engaging in gay relations in prison turned them gay. And I read a similar testimony from a man in the Sunday Times recently.
Kinsey found many men were gay for years and then went straight.
And are we really saying that all those men who were married with children for years but went gay were truly gay all that time?
It makes more sense, in light of the above examples, to say these men have acquired a taste for gay sex.
I am not denying that many gay men cannot simply choose not to be gay.
But I am concerned at the way you appear to foist these assumptions covertly on us and appear to deliberately speed past the reasonable stop for a discussion on these matters.
Surely there is nothing to hide?
PB
If one denies Biblical Inerrancy, then they are confronted with a serious moral dilemma, because they are making God out to be a liar, and if it is OK for God to lie surely it must be OK for man also, Num 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? And if one is convinced that God has spoken falsely this would be detrimental to having complete trust in God, which would mean a break down in obedience to the inerrant Word of God, this denial of the inerrancy of God’s Word makes the human mind a higher authority and standard of truth than God Himself, meaning that one has more truth than God Himself which is the foundation of this intellectual sin and fraudulent thought, to deny Biblical inerrancy represents that the Bible is wrong in it’s teaching and doctrine, this theory that the Bible is not inerrant or infallible (noninerrancy) is an apostate liberal theory supported by free thinkers who think they have more knowledge than God and who assume they know better than God, to suggest Biblical inerrancy is an evangelical invention is a false premise to support a false argument in favour of noninerrancy, Biblical inerrancy is historically taught and supported directly from the Word of God itself the Scriptures which are contained in the Old and New Testaments and any teaching other than this is false teaching in light of God’s Word. 1Co 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 2Pe 1:19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 2Pe 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 2Pe 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Why not let the women decide? What about if some wome prefer to share one alpha male than being the only one for a loser?