It’s called the “abuse excuse” and most people have at least a passing familiarity with it.
Mr. Haggard, of course, is the disgraced mega-church pastor from Colorado who resigned in disgrace in late 2006 for trysts with a Denver male prostitute who eventually spoke out because of Haggard’s hypocrisy regarding same-sex marriage. Haggard acknowledged his ’sin’, but then qualified it to an Illinois church audience about two years later, explaining that sexual abuse, suffered as a child of seven, had led him, decades later, to engage in the homosexual acts that eventually led to his downfall. His wife Gayle, a kind looking and sympathetic figure who has stayed by his side, released a book late last month and made a Today show appearance last week backing up her husband’s explanation that his homosexual behavior with Mike Jones was caused by events in his childhood that he had yet to resolve.
As I think most decent people would, I want to clarify that I’m not ranting against Gayle Haggard in any way. Indeed, I’m happy to more or less plug her book as she has a family to support and God only knows how much debt to swim out of because of the situation her husband put her family in. And far more importantly, I can only stand in awe of her resolve and strength in the face of what she’s dealt with for more than three years- and that’s just in public. I feel for her terribly, and I hope she’s able to pull herself and her children through this in a way that doesn’t scar them all too deeply. I disagree with her assessment of her husband’s issues of course, but since she’s chosen to stay 1) by his side, and 2) in-tune with evangelical views on the subject of homosexuality, I assume she has no other option than to shut down the analytical part of her possibly very sharp mind that would normally calculate what’s going on here without much difficulty.
Of course, for Ted and for Gayle, it’s convenient. As a mega-church pastor, anything is better than admitting the truth- that Haggard is a repressed homosexual from infancy forward who may have struggled mightily with his nature but eventually gave in to his impulses even in the face of his upbringing, inferences and eventual meal-ticket. My guess is that Haggard’s dodge here is part cynical deflection, but also part desperate Biblical justification. A wise and loving God, according to most evangelicals I know, simply doesn’t create homosexuality. That “condition,” viewed sometimes as a test, often as an unholy curse to be prayed over and resisted, is one that God didn’t intend for any of His creatures. If, in the sweaty fog of adolescence, you’re a boy in a narrow bed whose heart beats and blood races at the thought of another male’s touch, you’re either doomed to the test or somehow tainted by the prince of this world. God guarantees you a destination, but hardly an easy journey. And so forth. I’m not being gratuitous or anti-Christian. I am a Christian, as I define it anyway. My point is that, as tempting as it is for some to believe that Haggard is a godless cretin interested only in the trappings of wealth and influence that religion once delivered him, I’ve found that motivations, and the people behind them, are surprisingly gray rather than black or white. I don’t believe the evangelical view of homosexuality, despite Scriptural references to the contrary. I don’t think God is that cruel or that stupid. But I don’t necessarily believe that Ted Haggard is or was a complete psychopath bent on making money and amassing influence by selling God like a hair tonic to gullible believers. The truth, more than likely, is somewhere in the middle.
I lose patience with him because of what he’s leaning on to describe who he is. I don’t condemn so much what he did. Of course it was awful; a crime, albeit a minor one, and a betrayal of his family and his marriage. But I don’t blame him for acting on innate impulse, and indeed, I am sympathetic to the mercilessly rigid religious constructs he grew up with that have driven this central part of him underground to begin with. But when he blames these indiscretions on child sexual abuse, I draw a line. Not only is it simply incorrect to make that connection, it also contributes to the devastation of people everywhere who are survivors of such abuse. I’m not saying he wasn’t abused- he may very well have been and probably was. I’m not in the business of doubting people who claim child sex abuse, as I have a working knowledge of how prevalent it is. I’m saying that the abuse of him had zero to do with who he is and always has been. To suggest otherwise is to demonize victims and blame an innate condition on some pathological etiology. He doesn’t have the right to do that- not to millions of other survivors who are homosexual or straight, or to homosexuals who have emerged as they are under completely non-abusive circumstances.
Haggard is suggesting, in line with evangelical views on the subject, that his indiscretions are the product of a crime and a grave sin. There is absolutely no psychological or otherwise scientific evidence to support this. But Bible Christians and others who believe that homosexuality is a disability that must be either cured or endured often point to an interesting and seemingly compelling fact: There is an unusually large percentage of homosexual males who report child sex abuse at a young age. Yes, this is true. I’ve seen it. This tends to beg the question, then: Isn’t homosexuality, at least in part, a product of child sex abuse?
Actually, no. Increasing evidence suggests a biological/genetic component to homosexuality. But while that’s not fully established (because many in the Christian world will beat me over the head, despite common observation, with the lack of irrefutable evidence at this point), let me give you a brief tutorial in how predators work: Many boys (girls also) who eventually emerge as homosexual in puberty and adolescence, show signs of their sexual orientation in early years. I want to be very careful here so as not to stereotype or categorize gay males or gay people in general, and I know this is a sensitive subject. But the fact is, experienced predators are remarkably intuitive at picking up on characteristics that help them to choose targets. Boys who, even at very young ages, are already wrestling with gender identity and an innate sexual orientation, are not always but often identifiable to predators looking for suitable targets. So predators looking for male children target these particular boys for three reasons:
1. They are, because of their emerging sexual orientation, already marginalized, isolated and often the victims of bullying and teasing. They are often already alienated from their families. They often feel alone and helpless, wishing for someone who might understand them. Predators dream of opportunities like this.
2. Predators assume, because of their perception of the boy’s apparent sexual leanings, that he’ll be more open to the exploitation and abuse (‘you know, since he’s queer anyway, he’ll probably like it,’ goes the thinking). For predators who aren’t psychopathic and have to justify what they do, this is a handy tool.
3. Boys suffering sex abuse will be even less likely to report the abuse than girls because of the stigma attached to homosexuality, the perceived result or cause of the abuse in the first place. Predators love this; they have a safer bet with a scared and shamed child.
That’s it in a nutshell. Was Ted Haggard abused by a sexual predator when he was seven? Likely, unless he’s even more devious than even I believe. Did it “turn him gay” or create desires within him that through some pscyho-babble explanation had to be lived out? No. I’ve worked with and known dozens of boys who were profoundly sexually abused by males and are confidently straight, and vice-versa. Problem is, when a guy like Haggard hangs his own unresolved sexuality on criminal predation, he demeans the nature of boys, straight and gay, who emerge that way because of how God created them, not because of some storm they were caught in.
The vast majority of child predators claim sex abuse in their childhood also- it’s extremely useful to them in eliciting more lenient plea deals and sentences from prosecutors and judges all too willing to buy their sympathetic argument that “something awful in childhood made them do it.” Particularly for the faithful, this is a comforting canard. “I don’t believe in a God who would create a guy like this defendant, so I’m readily willing to accept and credit his explanation at being broken and twisted by some other poor victim in a vicious cycle of abuse.”
Problem is, that’s often bunk. Research by psychologist and predator expert Anna Salter and others shows that, when child predators are even threatened with a polygraph on their claims of child sex abuse, self-reporting goes down dramatically. It’s hard to swallow, folks, but the fact is no one knows where the urge to sexually harm a child comes from. It’s very easy to blame it on a cycle of abuse, but that doesn’t explain it. On the contrary, it unfairly brands victims of child sex abuse as somehow damaged and questionable, even though the vast majority of those abused actually react to the abuse by being more vigilant and protective parents and adults.
But don’t ask Ted Haggard to plumb those nuances. He has his excuse, and he can sell it to quiet his tortured soul and to face his family, friends and neighbors. Given the magnitude of the disgrace he’s suffered I’m tempted to forgive him. And as a Christian I’m commanded to. I’ll do that. But I won’t give cover to this nonsense. Not for one minute. There are far too many suffering souls who didn’t seek out power, comfort and fame and who need the healing power of the truth, not convenient spiritual pablum. This is for them, not Pastor Haggard.
© 2010, Roger Canaff. All rights reserved.
I would inject that Ted had a lot of problems with his identification as an evangelical even before this junk broke out. Not least among those problems is the evangelical/biblical view of sin. The Epistle of James tells us in chapter 1 how temptation functions. We are “drawn away and enticed by [our] own lust.” To talk about temptation coming from anywhere outside of us is simply blame shifting. Do emotional scars and situations and society and culture and a hundred other things contribute to our temptation? Of course they do. But the root is that we cannot be tempted to do anything that is not already within our hearts to do and Ted Haggard should simply say that.
Thanks, Roger for your insight on predators. It is important for us as parents to be aware of these things and help our children through the struggles of adolescence so that they do not feel marginalized, isolated and victimized.
Thanks, Jon, for your comment and insight. And here’s a blanket statement if there ever was one: I don’t claim to have a monopoly on the truth about God, our hearts, our psychological make-up or anything else. I’m a trial lawyer with a blog, that’s it. My opinions can come off strongly, but I’ll be the first to acknowledge that I don’t claim enduring wisdom on any of this stuff.
I agree with your assessment about temptation. Understanding that we approach it from slightly different angles, as you are more of a Bible Christian than I am, I still think your assessment from James (one of the most eloquent, lovely and concise books in the NT, in my humble opinion) is apparent in every day life. To explain, it is very similar to how we (those of us who consume alcohol, anyway) function when our inhibitions are lowered. Brief explanation:
A brilliant PhD (sex offender expert among other things) I work with named Dr. Nikki Valliere taught me that inhibitions do not CAUSE heretofore non-existent desires within us. Rather, they simply allow them to surface and manifest as behavior. We get what she calls “alcohol myopia” which is a sublime term; simply put, the more we drink, the less we care about what others around us will think about our behavior. So the myth about the drunk guy who hooks up with a girl whom he’d never want to kiss while sober, is just that- a myth. “The girls all get prettier at closin’ time”, or so said Mickey Gilley from my long ago childhood. Yes, but it reality, they just seem “pretty” enough now for us drunk guys to go after because we no longer care about how we might be judged by others or what consequence there might be. But the desire to kiss whomever- for whatever reckless and passing hormonal reason there is- was always there. Just suppressed. Obviously, the same goes for women who make the same judgment calls when judgment goes out the window.
For what it’s worth, one of the most compelling things I find about Jesus’ teaching from the Gospel (as I understand it, anyway) is His command to the disciples about how to pray (The Lord’s Prayer, of course). He didn’t say “make us strong enough to resist temptation.” Instead, He said “lead us not into temptation.” The lawyer in me greatly respects Him for choosing His words carefully, and I assume He meant them. We are tempted by the outside world- but those things inflame what’s already in us. Hence the Rabbi’s admonition to avoid those things for our own good.
Life has a way of revealing inconsistency in our theology/philosophy. Ideally we realize that and deal with it before the headlines break out!
)]
I agree with you that James is an amazing book. My daughters and I are almost done memorizing the whole book. One of the beauties of it is its earthiness. We often feel like our temptation comes from outside of us and a theist could easily push that off on god. I also love 1 Corinthians 10:13 which tells us that God is in control of our temptation. (Note: “in control”?”author” which James explicitly tells us.) The point of 1 Cor 10:13 is that God does not allow us to experience temptation that we cannot resist. So if we FEEL compelled by nature to do anything we need to believe that we CAN say no to it.
Jesus also taught that “it is out of the heart that the mouth speaks.” Something that Mel Gibson should come to grips with. What is so difficult about your profession is that none of us wants to believe that we have it within us to hurt a child. But my anthropology says that we all have the potential to be the worst that is imaginable. The only thing that separates me from the nastiest pedophile is the grace of God.
I appreciate you sharing these things. I come away with confirmation that humanity as a whole is fatally flawed but far from being discouraged I am amazed that God has made a way to fix us through His grace.
Keep up the good work of protecting the helpless from the predators!
[BTW, on an administrative note: it would be nice if follow-up comments could be emailed to the commenter. I don't really know how to do that of course! But it would be nice
I am reading your blogs for the first time. Amazing. You are a gifted writer with great wisdom to share.
Thanks, Tam- I’ve been blessed with good teachers, for sure.
Hmmm- I’ll work on that- the issue of getting comments back to the poster. I’m not the most functional with the technical side of this, but I’ve got good support. Thanks for the suggestion.
And I agree totally re: from the overflow of the heart goes the mouth. And another truism about alcohol: From James McMurty, a folk singer I love: “Whiskey don’t make liars, it just makes fools.” If we say it drunk, we may not have meant to say it, but we damn sure meant what we said.
Listened to the NPR interview & read the excerpt the other day: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123410826
Two things stood out. First, from the interview, Gayle Haggard says, “He was unfaithful to his marriage vows to me and he did lie to me. And so on many levels there was a breakdown,” she said. “There was moral failure in our marriage.” How can a marriage founded on a lie breakdown? The relationship was degraded from its inception. This speaks to the content of Mr. Haggard, he doesn’t have any truth in his being nor respect for the need for truth.
In the excerpt from her book, Mrs. Haggard says,
“I sobbed so loudly that I was sure the children could hear me… and within seconds I felt Ted’s shuddering sobs as well. I didn’t stop to comfort him; I let my tears flow. I needed to cry, because I was terrified.”
What struck me was not only was she trying to share a bed with the spouse that had betrayed her, but her perceived boldness at allowing herself to cry without comforting her husband first. The evangelical woman submits to her husband. In the Danvers Statement, written by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, men and women should follow gender based roles, derived from Old and New Testament. The Danvers Statement is widely accepted and endorsed by Christian groups. The CBMW is a part of the Nat’l Association of Evangelicals that Ted Haggard resigned as president of. Perhaps Mrs. Haggard has learned when to be strong for her family. I would be interested in knowing if she considers her first book to be, “the glad harmony portrayed in Scripture between the loving, humble leadership of redeemed husbands and the intelligent, willing support of that leadership by redeemed wives”
the CMBW site wasn’t available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danvers_Statement
The line of the Lord’s Prayer before your quotation, “lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”, is preceded by these lines, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us…” Trespass, here meaning a violation or sin. It makes me wonder if the unforgiving way Evangelicals deal with gays, lesbians, et cetera dooms Haggard family to remain together to work through their collective demons. How are Ted’s kids going to fair, being party to his infidelity and the unrest that has created?
Thanks for your comments, Catherine. I honestly don’t know how they’ll do, and God knows I wish no ill on Haggard’s children. In all fairness, most Evangelicals I know separate the sin from the sinner and go about things that way. I don’t want to speak for the Evangelical movement, but it seems that, in general, the belief is that homosexuality is a “condition” that- even if innate- must simply be borne, like any other condition that interferes with God’s plan for romantic love, procreation, and traditional marriage.
It’s not a sin to be homosexual. It’s a sin, in their eyes, to act on homosexual impulses, regardless of where they come from. There are certainly Evangelicals who believe that homosexuality can be “cured” through intense prayer and Bible-based therapy. This is without any- to my knowledge- serious psychological backing. But again, in fairness- I know quite a few Evangelical Christians who accept that homosexuality can’t be changed, but still believe that it must be endured. In other words, gay people, however they came to be, must simply remain celibate, pray for a miracle, or otherwise accept the burden God has given them, as He gives us all burdens to shoulder. I don’t personally believe that God does this, but that is the view of many Evangelicals I know. Those folks tend to believe that God moves in ways they do not understand. I can appreciate this view, but I don’t personally believe that God is that sloppy with His methods or that cruel. It’s not an easy position for a Christian to take, but my belief is in a basically benevolent God, but one Whose love for us is manifested in ways that we simply will never be able to understand. In that way I admit to serious Deist tendencies, but I remain Roman Catholic. The RC Church is the one through which I seem to communicate best with the God I believe in. I know a ton of Catholics who would disagree, but that’s where I come down.