Fool me twice…can’t get fooled again.
It seems that Ted Haggard’s image-rehab climb just got a lot steeper. As reported by the AP last weekend and confirmed by the NYT today, Haggard’s 2006 gay sex scandal — during which the prominent mega-church pastor and president of the National Association of Evangelicals admitted to enlisting the services of a male prostitute (as well as buying meth from him) — didn’t end there.
For those who missed it: Last week, just as Haggard was promoting “The Trials of Ted Haggard,” a new, apparently sympathetic HBO documentary about his fall from grace, a male volunteer at Haggard’s former 10,000-member New Life Church came forward with allegations that he and Haggard had a long-term sexual relationship beginning when he (the volunteer) was in his early 20s. Oops. Since then, the preacher-in-exile has confessed to a relationship with the volunteer that, although “inappropriate,” involved “no physical contact.” (Which leaves what? Phone sex? IM sex? Does it matter?) Last Sunday, New Life pastor Brady Boyd announced to his congregation that the volunteer’s accusations were true, that the church had known about Haggard’s affair for almost two years, and that the church’s directors had been making compensatory payments to the volunteer ever since.
Hush money scandal aside, what I find really interesting (and potentially important) about this new chapter in the Ted Haggard saga is the way in which Haggard’s attempts to realign himself with the “mainstream” (read: heterosexual) evangelical community have been greeted with eye-rolls and laughter — even among the evangelicals who are supposed to believe in that exact realignment.
Haggard, you might remember, enrolled in gay-reparative therapy (he called it “spiritual restoration”) shortly after admitting to his affair with Mike Jones, the meth-selling prostitute. He came back three weeks later with good news: he was now “completely heterosexual.” Of course, nobody in the secular world bought it, and Haggard’s pronouncement became instant late-night fodder. (Conan O’Brien: “Haggard says he will prove he is completely heterosexual by having sex only with men who are completely heterosexual.”) While living and studying at Liberty, I brought up Haggard’s struggles to a bunch of my hallmates, just to see if they would defend him. And they laughed. “Ted Haggard is as gay as the day is long,” one said. In fact, of the dozen-odd conservative Christians I asked about Haggard, all of them seemed to think that his gayness was as deeply entrenched as Al Sharpton’s blackness or Andy Dick’s unfunniness.
And that’s precisely the weird part, because Liberty’s official position says the exact opposite. In conservative Christian theology, in fact, nobody is a homosexual. (As I explain in my book, many conservative evangelicals prefer the term “same-sex attraction” to “homosexuality,” since it sounds more like an arbitrary choice than an immutable characteristic.) So when Liberty students laugh at Pastor Ted for trying to turn himself straight, what they’re really saying is that they don’t buy the lessons they’re being taught in their classes and in church. They’re saying that no matter what the Bible teaches, some people — even famous pastors with access to the best spiritual restoration clinics in America — are just…gay.
Ted Haggard’s most recent episode seems, on the surface, like a setback for gay/evangelical relations — just another opportunity for gays to call out Christian hypocrisy, and for evangelicals to distance themselves from all things gay — but I don’t think it is. After all, if ultra-conservative Liberty students can be convinced that homosexuality isn’t a choice — at least not in Ted Haggard’s case — doesn’t that undermine most of the arguments made by the anti-gay wing of the evangelical community? The whole premise of Jerry Falwell’s tough stance on homosexuality was that gayness is a bad habit, like smoking or nail-biting, that can be cured with a little hard work and a can-do spirit. But Liberty students seem to reject that premise, at least subconsciously. And as more prominent Christian figures struggle with homosexuality (and they will), the notion that everyone is born straight will seem increasingly out-of-touch to young Christians. So while this week’s relevation might not be good for Ted Haggard’s image, or for the documentary he’s peddling, the fact that Liberty students saw it coming a mile away might mean that, in a strange way, a gay-tolerant evangelical world isn’t as far-fetched as it seems.
What do you think? Is Ted Haggard’s newest sex scandal, in the words of our president, a “teachable moment?” Or is he just the latest in a line of Christian frauds?
What I find even more interesting than the Liberty students’ essentialism is the apparent casualness with which they express it. My ex-wife and I watched “Jesus Camp” after Ted 1.0 broke (pause to flay “Jesus Camp” for its many sins), and when he finally swished onscreen, we burst out laughing in astonishment. “Gay as the day is long,” indeed! But that judgment — which I suspect, but can’t be sure, we would have made without the scandal — hinges on a thorough absorption of cultural stereotypes and in-group (or are they?) clues, and the eye-rolling pose of affection, superiority, and benevolence we know, because we’ve learned, to adopt. On the whole, do Liberty students imbibe the same gay-ified, in-the-know pop culture that my wife and I consciously sought out? How does that engagement work with, or jostle against, the parallel, but porous, world of evangelical pop culture, where there are no gays, just same-sex attraction?
— SH
January 27, 2009, 10:32 pm
Ted Haggard seems to be the latest piece in the “vehement homophobes are probably gay” puzzle. If what you say about the students at Liberty is true for the evangelical community at large, it seems to me that when the older (and gayer?) generation of evangelical preachers steps down the community might become more tolerant.
— CMK
January 28, 2009, 8:48 pm
SH, i appreciate your questions as they are the same type of questions I have asked of myself in the past. Are there homosexuals or simply some who find certain individuals attractive? What is the nature of God and does he need certain attributes to be God? both are complex and should be addressed with a measure of thought, however, as an evangelical and Liberty student, please don’t lump the regurgitated nonsense that spews out of some people’s mouths with the faith that thoughtful Christians have agonized over. Honestly I feel sorry for Haggard and for that kid in Roose’s book, the baseball bat homophobe. It seems that they haven’t considerd the whole council of God, scripture. even a cursory read reveals that all are sinners and that all fall short of the glory of GOd. And that while sin must be recognized for what it is, wickedness. There should never be an air of arrogance that would even appear to send the message that man is saved by anything else by the righteousness of Christ and his atonement on the cross. I am convinced it is impossible to defend homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle by using the Bible. I am also convinced that there is no sin of any consequence except the denial of Christ and his work on the cross, which underlie all sins. Because of these convictions I have gay friends that I consider to be amazingly noble and moral and that I consider to be better people than me. But I also recognize that it’s not my righteousness that has made me acceptable in the eyes of God but rather the substitutionary atonement of his son. That the deepest, most damaging part of anyone’s life is the denial of Christ as Savior. It is because of these convictions that I am not primarily concerned with someone’s sexual orientation but rather whether they accept Christ as the risen Lord.
— matt stinger
April 12, 2009, 11:03 pm
The problem with Liberty’s - and the evangelical culture’s - stance on homosexuality is that it is a stance on homosexuality in the first place. In other words, rather than starting with homosexuality, evangelicals should be interested in the question of SEXUALITY. What is it? What does it tell us about the soul? What does it say about our existence? Most are not asking this question. The University is a good place to ask this question. Evangelicalism’s collective lack of introspection on one of the most mysterious facets of human life may reflect the lack of open minded, metaphysical dialouge on this issue in pop culture - or culture, and it may also reflect the lack of interest in basic introspection found within the evangelical community. I think that some evangelicals will eventually “go there,” and search out the heart of sexuality. John Paul II did, and that stirred things up at least a little bit in the Catholic community. I would argue that change is coming for the evangelicals and for Liberty. It is inevitable. Society desperately needs a real discussion about sex … one that goes beyond the battles over gay marriage and internet porn and the registration of sex offenders. I mean, a real conversation that starts with questions like … what does sex mean in my marriage? What does it mean within myself? Why can’t we talk about it in church, except to lecture teenagers or condemn gays and lesbians? Why can’t pop culture look into it, instead throwing us Britney Spears and Paris Hilton like? Evangelical culture and pop culture alike have as much to say about sexuality as the Big Mac has to say about the culinary arts. Homosexuality is such an issue at Liberty because evangelicals - and many Christians and persons of other faiths for that matter - can use it as a convenient scapegoat for their own deep, painful, angst about sexuality. As a former Liberty student, I found this to be the case in my own life. Evangelical students and professors would do well to start with a simple, painful question: why is divorce more common among evangelicals than it is in the secular world, as the Barna Research Group has demonstrated? But, that would require some honest-to-goodness evangelical introspection. Let’s hope that can happen in our lifetime.
— Chad Forcey
April 15, 2009, 4:15 pm
The evangelicals with whom I have been associated for many years use the term “gay” to refer to someone who practices a homosexual lifestyle. Whether it be students saying someone is as “gay as the day is long” or merely acknowledging that someone prefers a certain type of sexual relationship, the Liberty students’ phrase should not be misconstrued. While I cannot speak for them, neither can this small group of students at Liberty University speak for the broader evangelical community. If they are representative of the broader movement, this phrase does not indicate the acceptance that some people by nature are heterosexual and others are homosexual. Referring to someone as “gay” is simply using the term that is culturally in vogue, but should not be interpreted as some contradiction of the movement’s historical (and continued) position on this issue. Agree to disagree, but this is the reality.
— Allen
April 22, 2009, 2:08 am