HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME

image

‘We Just Weren’t Sure How To Deal With It’

Orginally published on Monday, November 13, 2006 at 5:01 AM
by Todd Rhoades

I've tried to give a real balanced approach to the Ted Haggard situation; calling people to not to speculate (particularly about Ted's wife) during this situation. But this caught me a little off-guard; and I've seen no one else (other than a Time Magazine blogger) even notice this comment. Over the weekend, the head of the Traditional Values Coalition, Rev. Louis Sheldon, said that "a lot" of people knew about Haggard's homosexuality "for a while" but just "weren't sure just how to deal with it"...

I’m not trying to speculate; but I don’t want to ignore Sheldon’s comments either.  You see, if “a lot of people” knew about this and did nothing; and have a much deeper situation on our hands.

In his comments to the newspaper, ”The Jewish Week”, Sheldon casually mentions the Haggard ordeal amid a bunch of other questions on the election, morals, etc.  According to the paper:

Months before a male prostitute publicly revealed Haggard’s secret relationship with him, and the reverend’s drug use as well, “Ted and I had a discussion,” explained Sheldon, who said Haggard gave him a telltale signal then: “He said homosexuality is genetic. I said, no it isn’t. But I just knew he was covering up. They need to say that.”

Sheldon’s words sound vague to me.  Haggard gave him a ‘telltale’ sign and knew he was covering up.  That sounds to me a little different than Ted admitting he is gay (which he still hasn’t admitted).  And who are the “a lot” who Sheldon says knew about Haggard’s homosexuality?  And why openly admit that, ‘yeah, I knew about it’ but didn’t do anything about it… especially when you’re the head of a ‘traditional values’ coalition?  It makes no sense.

When will we stop shooting ourselves in the foot?  The time to do something was before this thing happened, Louis; not after.  Sheldon’s scenario puts Haggard in the same situation that we’ve bemoaned the Catholic church about for the last few years… knowing there was sin in the camp and doing absolutely nothing about it.

I see no evidence that anyone knew anything other than Ted Haggard and his male homosexual prostitute friend about Ted’s secret life.  But if it comes out that some people, especially other Christian leaders, knew things and didn’t do anything because they ‘just weren’t sure how to deal with it’, then we’re in a whole lot deeper trouble.

What are your thoughts?


This post has been viewed 2076 times so far.


  There are 41 Comments:

  • Posted by Randy Ehle

    The same week that the Haggard story “broke”, two of my seminary classes focused on sexual purity - purely coincidental, I might add, with no intent in the pun.  The timing was, however, providential.  In one of those classes, I jotted this note:  “Christian leaders: who is your Nathan?”

    You remember King David.  After shacking up with Bathsheba, then murdering her husband, David was confronted by a trusted - and exceedingly brave - advisor.  Nathan shared a moving and very pointed story that at first inflamed the king’s fierce anger...until Nathan told him that the king himself was the lead character.  The realization of the gravity of his deeds sucked the wind out of David.  Perhaps his mouth went dry as his knees buckled beneath him.  Was it that night that David’s tears fell to the papyrus as he penned the deeply penitent words of Psalm 51?

    So I ask you, brothers: Who’s your Nathan?  Who is mine?

  • Posted by

    John, I’m sure the Episcopal Church, the UCC, parts of the Methodist and Baptist denominations, and various other denominations will repent and cast out all their gay members now that you have proclaimed the truth to them.

    I grew up in what I believe is your kind of church, a church that taught that homosexuality was a mental defect that should be corrected by therapy or invasive surgery if necessary, a church that taught me women were made to serve men and therefore expected to be submissive, that the Bible endorsed slavery and segregation was proper, that adultery was an unforgivable sin for a woman but not so unforgivable for a man, a church filled with hatred and intolerance.

    I really see no point in conversing any further with someone who claims to be a Christian and then tells me there’s no need to pray for God’s guidance. 

    May Jesus unharden your heart.

  • Posted by

    John 3:36 I think you have a pretty good handle on this.  All sin must be repented of.  We shouldn’t, and most of us do not despise homosexuals.  But we cannot change scripture to fit our desires.  I hope that the church holds fast to the truth that grace is available to all who repent, of all kinds of sin, but there is no forgiveness where there are excuses made for sin.  There are men, (many of us) who have felt such desire for numerous women that it seemed uncontrollable.  The excuse is that we can look and not touch.  Or that we can mess around and not be guilty if we don’t actually have intercourse. This is a lie.  We MUST seek God’s strenght to overcome this perversion of His will, in our minds and in our actions, just as homosexuals must seek His strength to overcome their battle with the flesh.  There is no exception to His standard, but there is empowering grace to those who judge themselves by His word, and reach out in faith to overcome.  Though it slay me, His word is true, and is the only standard by which to judge my condition.  And He will forgive, if we come through His cross, recieve mercy, and forsake our sin.  In His patience, many times He gives us time to repent, and even fall again, to repent again, and again, but He never lowers the standard.  To openly defy Him and change His word is to provide false hope and comfort.

  • Posted by

    Well stated bondservant and DanielR, just to let you know I do regularly pray that God will continually soften my heart to be more willingly conformed to the likeness of Christ and make me more able to see others as He sees them.In the natural world we would look at a doctor who misdiagnosed and mistreated a patient as being guilty of criminal misconduct and abuse of his position, compare that to the church leaders who usurp the word of God and deny the truths therein and promise eternal life to those who remain active in their sins and in open rebellion against the commandments of God and Jesus Christ. Jesus said it is not an act of adultery that convicts you of breaking that commandment - it is simply a lustful thought - hetero or homesexual in nature - the thought life will be judged and convicts us. I would never advocate kicking homosexuals out of churches, but the truth must be proclaimed if they are ever to have any hope of eternal life. Comforting them in the present will provide no comfort in the future, but rather will, as bondservant said very well, provide false hope and comfort.I’ve yet to see a like-minded Christian lift their Bible to beat anyone over the head with it and likewise I would not be silent when the word of God is misused to convey what you described above. Your perceiving me to be like that does not make me that way, nor does it even confirm that my thoughts are as you present them. It is horrific that people go through experiences like that is churches, but to abandon the truth and believe the lie, though appealing to the flesh has no promise of confort in the eternal realm.

  • Posted by

    John, I suspect my church proclaims pretty much the same truth you do regarding this area.  We call it a sin. 

    Not like the church I grew up with and walked away from did, but we do call it sin.  But before I go back to the type of church I grew up with I’ll walk away again and continue my walk with God alone.  I apologize for saying that is “your kind of church”, that was overly harsh. 

    I am interested in what conclusions the various churches that are exploring the issue come to.  I applaud the Episcopal Church for following where they believe the Holy Spirit is leading them, even if they turn out to be wrong and at the same time I’m glad my church is not going thru the turmoil of the Episcopal Church.  I’m glad to let them take on that issue and await their conclusions.

    I like this quote, although I’m not sure who said it;

    The way forward is to grasp the dynamic of God: as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the teaching God, which, we are promised, will guide believers into all truth.  Not all truth is given in the past; the Spirit has something to teach us in the present. It is untrinitarian consistently to set God’s work in the past against what we may learn here and now. All innovations should be tested, but it is a mistake to assume that all development is heresy…

    ...There is one sure way of testing the Spirit: do our beliefs lead to an increase in injustice, bigotry or suffering? If they do, they simply cannot be reconciled with the workings of the creative, compassionate Spirit promised to us.

    In John 16:12-13 Jesus tells His followers;

    “Oh, there is so much more I want to tell you, but you can’t bear it now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not be presenting his own ideas; he will be telling you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future.”

    I, for one, am willing to believe we may not know all of God’s truth yet.

  • Posted by

    Daniel R.  Brother, I understand your concern and am sorry that you grew up with unforgiving, proud people.  Could you consider though, that God’s holiness is absolute, and think about the possibility of His empowering grace to overcome?  Just because proud people point their fingers does not mean that they are wrong about the problem.  We need to stand firm in truth, but we should do it with great humility. The amazing thing is not that God could accept Ted Haggard or anyone else who struggle with homosexuality, if they repent; it is amazing that He accepts me, with all of my past sins, and my wanton heart, which continually must be held in check by His word and Spirit.  I don’t think that God will amaze us by His willingness to accept unrepentant sinners into heaven, but I do think that we will be amazed that, after all of our faults and failures and sins, we ourselves will be found worthy to stand before Him. But, please, be sure that sin will be judged. The answer, brother, is to go to the Lord and let His word guide in all things.  The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, not create new truth for us to believe.  I say this with such compassion for you, brother, I do not comdemn.  I have struggled so much and tried so hard in my own life to find allowances for my sin, and I must say that freedom has never come to me through this avenue.  “Did God say?”, was the original temptation to Eve, and it still tempts us today.  His word is true, His judgments are certain, His forgiveness is available when we fall IF we repent, and His power is available to help us overcome.  But we will fall short of His empowering grace if we try and change the standard.

  • Randy Ehle said:
    “So I ask you, brothers: Who’s your Nathan?  Who is mine? “

    Our “Nathan” is anyone who confronts us in our sin.  They could be a believer or non-believer- the fact remains that if we are in sin we need to repent.  The other option is to continue to lie and deceive.

  • Posted by

    Bernie,

    I think this is where a lot of people disagree with you. Nathan had a relationship with David I think. Paul had a relationship with Peter so he could “oppose him to his face”. I think our “nathans” are people in our community circle, not just anyone.

  • Posted by

    I’d like to agree with you Peter, but the way it usually works is that Nathan’s are called divisive and accused of being like Korah, leading rebellion against the “annointed”.  So the only ones that “leaders” allow to speak to them are other “leaders”, and anyone else who steps up to the plate is either asked to leave, or made a non-entity in the church.  That is why people like Ted get away with their faults until they are huge and undeniable.  I wish church leaders would develope a little thicker skin and not assume that their “followers” are trying to undermine them when they have the courage to confront them.

  • Nathan’s relationship with David was that Nathan was a prophet and spoke as God told him.  Paul was related to Peter as any Christian is connected to another because they are in the family of God.  Paul opposed Peter publically because Peter was damaging the local church by his hypocrisy. 

    If our heart is open, we will receive rebuke from any source.  That is the point.  If we are in sin, why wait until a friend points it out?  If our goal is to be like Christ (Rom. 8:29), we will use every opportunity to get there.  If our goal is to lie and deceive, we will resist all forms of rebuke until we are cornered.

  • Posted by

    By the way, I’m not accusing Ted Haggard of this.  I don’t know what happened in his church with those that attended and looked to him for leadership.  But generally, pastors don’t allow “their flock” to confront them in any significant way.

  • Posted by

    bondservant writes “I wish church leaders would develope a little thicker skin and not assume that their “followers” are trying to undermine them when they have the courage to confront them.” That is so very true, but also… I wish people who consider themselves “prophetic” would be more careful about the ways they DO confront church leaders. Seriously… I’ve been on the wrong side of what I would call “incorrect correction.” People that mean well but end up gossipping and backbiting over trivial matters, or about matters that they’re just plain wrong about.

    Not everyone who has an issue with something said in a sermon or decided in a committee or sung in a song is a prophet… That said, there is DEFINITELY a place for correction and confrontation, but it is still, I argue, in community. I don’t find any prescriptive word in the Bible for us in the church being rebuked by outsiders. Sorry, I just don’t see it…

  • Posted by Randy Ehle

    On the question of “who’s your Nathan?”, I’m going to suggest that there is a both/and aspect to the answer.  Bernie is correct that any believer can and perhaps ought to confront another believer with their sin - bearing in mind, of course, Jesus’ strong words about judging oneself before judging another.  And each of us ought to humbly accept the rebuke of another believer if their judgment is accurate.

    But there are a couple things about Nathan that stand out to me, and which were in my mind when I asked the question.  First, Nathan had a relationship with David.  He was one of the king’s advisors, a man to whom David turned for counsel.  Second, Nathan was a prophet who spoke God’s words to the people (a good type of guy to have on your team, I suppose!).  We see this relationship lasting to the very end of David’s life, with Nathan both advising David about Adonijah’s assumption of the throne and then anointing Solomon as king in David’s place.  Third, Nathan was willing to put his life on the line for David’s righteousness.  In ancient times, it was risky business to confront the king; he held your life in his hands, and if you displeased him in any way, he had the authority to banish or even kill you.  So when Nathan said to King David, “You are the man,” he was risking his neck.

    So when I ask, “who’s your Nathan?”, I’m not thinking of just anyone; I am thinking of someone with whom you have a trust relationship, whose counsel you listen to and heed because you know that he speaks godly wisdom; and who is willing to risk the relationship for your sake.  Do you have someone like that?  If not, you need one.  So do I.

  • Posted by

    Thanks Peter for your reply.  I agree that there are backbiters and divisive people who can cause a lot of trouble. But there is an attitude in many people that “my pastor has the final word”, and I think this is a reason that some pastors get into a position similar to Haggard’s.  When your only “accountability” group is other men who are in the same position you are, there is a tendency to cover each other’s backs.  Not intentionally, but it happens.  It’s hard to tell your friend that a joke was off color, or you’ve noticed he’s a little too cosy with the church secretary.  The community can sometimes become the enabler.  I’m just asking pastors to consider that there may be others with insight in their church, besides those who are counted among the leadership. And because so many times the senior pastor has SO MUCH influence in who stays and who goes, there are a lot of Nathan’s in the pastor’s relationship circle who simply keep their mouths shut.  Please, please, don’t become hardened to the comments and concerns of the common church goer.  God just may be trying to get your attention through that insignificant brother, because those who have attained significance are unwilling to speak.

  • Posted by

    Bernie,

    I think Randy and Peter are right, I can’t see how we can make a case for a 21st century Nathan being someone with whom there is absolutely no personal relationship.  And I appreciate Randy reminding us of the risk Nathan was willing to make.  It’s easy to call people out for something we think is wrong, but I wonder what things any of us would be willing say if we knew that there was a very likelihood we would lose our lives for saying them.  Frankly, if I thought I was jeopardizing my life for expressing my opinions here or in another forum, I wouldn’t be participating. 

    Nevertheless Bernie, you say: [If our heart is open, we will receive rebuke from any source.]

    I don’t really agree with that statement.  But . . . I can’t help but think back on the numerous times 5 or 6 people here at MMI tried to offer graceful rebuke to you for your tone, or your clearly incorrect statements, or your disrespect of another poster . . . and you generally ignore us.  We do, after all, have a limited relationship with one another here.  Probably more than I have with Dobson or you have with Hagee.  I don’t really think we are Nathan to one another, but because we are entering into Todd’s living room and dialoguing with one another, I think there is some reasonable mutual accountability . . . I’d like to submit to that anyway.  Would you?

    Wendi

  • Posted by

    Bondservant, I wish that I could say I’m never confronted by my members. I get confronted regularly but it is usually about attendance, finances, the music, and occasionally about something biblical or my theology.

    Never about how can we reach the lost, what can we do as a mission outreach, and so forth.

    I’m sure many of you have other church experiences and that there are churches out there that are concerned about spiritual matters but this is what I face and I bet I’m not alone.

    On Sheldon’s comments, One of the least favorite persons I have in the church are those who after the church has decided to move ahead in one direction, and after things haven’t turned out as hoped or as quickly as hoped, they will say, “I knew it wouldn’t work.” All the while having never voiced that opinion during the decision process. I think it reveals a very poor, and cowardice, attitude and I think Sheldon is grandstanding.

    I agree with a previous comment regarding why would one admit they knew something and were confounded by what to do about it. I might accept this from a layperson, especially a new Christian, but a long time pastor and head of a coalition?

  • Page 2 of 2 pages

     <  1 2
Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: