Blog

I would agree many evangelicals want him to go away, but I doubt that is everyone (not that you were saying it is). I think restoration to most evangelicals look like church discipline, counseling, and prayer. So in actuality I think they have done this quite well with Ted. The reality is that only those close to him will know what restoration looks like for him, and in the end it is really up to Ted to live as a restored man (when he feels he is, I think he has said he is on his way at this point).

Frankly, IMO there are too many versions out there regarding what truly went down to come to any real conclusion who is more to blame for not resolving the issues. I definitely had an opinion after hearing Ted Haggard's most recent interviews on TV (which was very similar to your post here) but after reading another angle on Kingdom Grace's blog (http://kingdomgrace.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/le…), I wasn't so sure anymore whether his desire for restoration was fully genuine or simply part of a public image repair due to financial problems, and did not consider that forgiveness and safeguards from future damage are two issues that need to be dealt with separately.

Tyler, how do you feel about the fact that New Life essentially exiled him from his own community and state?

Josh, did you watch the documentary by Pelosi?

My central concern is actually not with what Ted did or his repentance, both of which were made clear in the documentary. My concern was the way the culture exiled him and did not seek to restore him back to the community.

First off I don't want to judge from the outside which is what I basically said in my post about this. It would be so easy to start judging him or New Life but I have no relationship with either. The one thing I will say is that New Life seems to have practiced church discipline in this case and I think it was probably the right move. Not for the long term, but the short term. I understand that it could have pushed him away further but in the Bible church discipline is always about having a person leave the congregation in hopes for restoration. I have almost zero doubt (maybe I'm too optimistic) that this was New Life's hope and desire for Ted.

I don't know Jonathan. Do you think that Ted wants restoration with the community, and if so, what would that look like for him?

Fundamentally, I am opposed to the concept of exile as “church discipline.” However, there are people in the congregation who were victims of Ted's behavior. Their need for safety and healing must be considered also.

Do you suppose he is ready to go through the work of “clearing” with the people that he hurt? Beyond general statements of remorse, he has not said much about his concern for the people who were betrayed or violated by the abuse of his role as pastor and what they might need from him in order to heal.

There are quite a few discrepancies between Pelosi's story, Ted's story, and New Life's story. I question Ted's willingness to allow himself to be painted as the repentant victim in this story. He has not explained the support that they gave him. Why is he willing to let Pelosi's statement stand undisputed that the church won't forgive, when is there is evidence that attempts at reconciliation continue between Ted and the leadership of New Life church?

I am not convinced that restoration is being withheld from Ted. I agree with you that his restoration is not dependent on him earning it. However, I wonder if rather than restoration, he may be seeking to climb back up on the same pedestal from which he toppled.

No, I only saw his interview on Oprah in full length and parts of the Larry King interview. But if it is true that his “exile” was something he and New Life mutually agreed on, as the best way to initiate opportunities and give space for healing on both sides, Haggard's own portrayal of the shunning (as far as the church leadership is concerned) may be a bit tainted. I might be wrong and I'm sure that there's been plenty of inexcusable rejection and continued unforgiveness from within his community and across the United States but if it is reinstatement in any type of leadership that he seeks as part of the restoration process, it would be neither wise nor appropriate at this point. Have you read the Kingdom Grace post I linked to in the last comment?

I did read Grace's comment and as she has stated below, she sees it differently.

Grace, once again my problem is not with Ted, what he did, or his heart. I specifically mentioned that I was not excusing him. Trust was broken.

This post was about exposing a corrupted culture that can't embrace forgiveness. I would offer that the real victims ARE the people of New Life who are missing out on their own restoration which comes through forgiveness. Ted can't impose that on New Life. They have to embrace it. But Exile and “just moving on” is not restoration.

I would suggest that a clearing never happened here because the elders who “managed” his restoration process were not mature enough to take Jesus up on his call to forgive. And that is sad. Ted's letter, which was read in the documentary, basically outlined full acceptance and responsibility for what he did. It was also immediate. But unlike Jesus who immediately and fully reinstated Peter, the community refused to embrace him back and restore him.

At the end of the documentary, Ted explained that the reason he never came forward for help in the first place was because he thought that he would be cast out and exiled. And that is exactly what happened. And what breaks my heart is that this culture exists in a LOT of churches. It kills pastors. And everyone suffers.

Yes, I saw her comment only after I posted my reply. And I fully agree with your comments on evangelical culture and its inability to embrace its own fallen leaders and to acknowledge the brokenness within all of us who are ready to cast stones.

My main problem is the parallel you draw to Peter's immediate reinstatement by Jesus. The only real victim of his transgression (beside the damage he did to himself) was Jesus. And there was no addictive nature to his denial either. So I'd be very careful to use this example as something that would describe a good fit for what New Life should do with Ted (or should have done after the news of the scandal broke). From what I've heard, neither Ted nor New Life seem to be mostly concerned about the victims and their healing process, but both parties are trying very hard to project a public image that doesn't square with the facts. I have a gut feeling that we haven't seen the end of hypocrisy and cover-up attempts on ALL sides yet!

Josh, I would offer that Peter's example is the exact thing we need to look at because of the profound nature of it. It was Jesus putting his own words to action. Forgive seventy times seven. And we don't like that. It's hard. And when we don't we get situations that don't resolve because what is actually happening that we're holding onto the wound that destroys both parties and the relationship.

And I'm not addressing this at the victims. It's at the leadership of New Life that chose not to forgive, which then revealed the corrupted culture that exists in churches. If the leadership had stepped up and revealed how forgiveness works, this could have been taken care of a long time ago. But because they didn't it ended up on national television 18 months later.

I'm sorry but you didn't just talk about forgiveness. You included immediate reinstatement. When issues like abuse of position, addiction, and the possibility of continued trust are involved, it can't be exclusively about the dynamics between the church and the former leader. And I think Dodd had excellent suggestions how this could have been dealt with on Haggard's end but he chose the public limelight instead.

I don't blame the New York Times for putting the following spin on Pelosi's documentary because it echoes how many feel about his attempts to set the record straight:

“The film doesn’t merely document Mr. Haggard’s fall from grace, it also tracks the pathology of his attempt at a comeback. It’s a cautionary tale for disgraced public figures; for viewers it’s a master class in the art of self-serving remorse and hubris dressed up as humility.”

Josh, I would watch the documentary because it makes it clear that Haggard was not seeking public support but instead support from friends through email and the media picked up on it.

I would also add that reinstatement would require the community to deal with the issue rather than let it fester. It doesn't mean that he has to assume the same role, but to be exiled makes it worse for everyone.

And what happened with Peter was not just individual but corporate. His denial meant a denial of what the community was doing. He broke trust with the disciples as well. I would offer that what Peter did would have a more profound affect on community because his denial put into question what everyone was doing. If Haggard did the same, it would resound much louder.

What is also interesting and revealing to me is that Haggard admits he wouldnt' go back to the old way. He realized he was living a lie and it took his fall to take away the lie. I would suggest that he is on the way to restoration, even if the community is not.

Unfortunately, your link to the HBO site only has a teaser clip. Are you aware of any full online versions?

No but you can do what I did. My satellite company DishNetwork offered three free months for trying out HBO. It's on three times a day for the next month.

Due to several moves necessitated by our employers, we have lived in several communities, and have been deeply involved in several IC's (Institutional “churches”), although never on staff. In more than one of these “churches” paid staff allowed themselves to become mired in situations similar to, but not quite the same as Ted's.

On each occasion, when the situation was about to become public knowledge, said staff persons were asked behind closed doors to resign, with the understanding that their indiscretions would not be made public if they did so. Of course, that is what happened. They suddenly resigned and departed town, using any excuse they could think of as their stated reason for resigning.

Since these situations were dealt with “under the table”, at least two of these people who suddenly departed moved to other states and other IC's to take up where they had left off in our community with their indiscretions.

One stayed and was supposedly “forgiven” and “restored”, and returned, not to work for the “church”, but to attend. Only two or three of us would even speak to this person, who was shunned in the extreme. I saw how lepers must have been treated in Bible times. The person disappeared after a few weeks.

Unfortunately, all of these situations were handled terribly. Being part of the “back room” group that discussed each situation, the major concern was the damage the situation could cause that local “church” should it become public knowledge. So of course the plan was to get the transgressor out of town, the further away the better, as quickly as possible.

I saw no forgiveness or restoration. I just saw damage control. These groups did not want to lose people and money, and said so in the meetings I referred to. Of course, in every instance there was reference to protecting the “innocent victims”, but in reality that was not the driving force behind the decision to remove the offender immediately.

Unfortunately, no one saw restoration being modeled. Eventually, bits and pieces of these situations seemed to leak out, and although there was little or no evidence of how the “church” leadership had handled the situation, many people pretty much figured it out. The take away lesson – Don't forgive, just get rid of people who have offended. Cut your losses. Cut the dead wood. Who needs the embarrassment and loss of status and money?

Since the “church” teaches us this lesson time after time, we should apply it to the people in our personal lives, right? – To an erring spouse, an erring child , an erring friend or an erring employee? Right? Cut your losses and get on with life. That is sooo “Christian”, sooo “church”, but not sooo Jesus.

I’m not part of the system any more. So now you know what really goes on in those “donut-filled” back-room meetings at the “church”. It happens all the time, all across America.

Jonathan,
I agree with you about evangelical culture in general, but not New Life Church specifically. While I don't agree with everything that they have done in this difficult situation, it appears that they have extended forgiveness and expressed desire for reconciliation and restoration contrary to Ted's portrayal of the situation.

Yes, ideally restoration would occur in community, but there is nothing about this situation that is ideal. Until Ted's actions of repentance begin to line up with his words of repentance, I do not believe that it is out of line for the leaders of the congregation to proceed with caution and protect those who were victimized.

What was there to be forgiven for, other than that he cheated on his wife?

See, this is the problem with the belief that being gay is completely unnatural under any circumstance. The same pressure that Ted Haggard felt his entire life (and still feels, I am certain) to not act on the fact that he has homosexual feelings is what caused him to get married in a heterosexual relationship. Simply put, he wanted and felt pressured to fulfill what Christianity teaches (wrongly, in my opinion) is the only “normal” way to live.

I know what that's like. I lived it. I spent almost 20 years trying to be “normal.” Getting married, having kids, all that. It works for a while, and then you get to a certain point in the road and realize you did all that for all the wrong reasons, and quite clearly you just made a mess out of your life because you should never have been married in the first place, nor brought children into the equation, but the Catch 22 is that you did just that — in your attempt to do what Christianity says is the only way.

Christianity has to figure this whole LGBT thing out, and not just by brushing it under the rug by saying it's all just sin. Haggard is the first of many to come, I guarantee that. In fact, I know of dozens personally who felt they had no choice but to choose between their church and being true to themselves.