Christian Right leader: I knew Haggard's secret
Posted November 12, 2006
Traditional Values Coalition chairman Louis Sheldon dropped a bomb shell in an interview with The Jewish Week's Larry Cohler-Esses.
While delivering a standard post-election analysis, the Christian right leader said that he hadn't been shocked to learn about former National Association of Evangelicals president Ted Haggard's sexual proclivities. Writes Cohler-Esses:
Sheldon disclosed that he and...others knew about Haggard’s homosexuality “for awhile ... but we weren’t sure just how to deal with it.”
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.”
(Thanks to The Right Reverend Rabbi Judah for passing along this story. To read the entire Nov. 10 article, go to www.thejewishweek.com)
Some obvious follow-up questions: "How did you know Haggard was gay?" Was the Colorado Springs preacher admitting his same-sex attraction to others? Were rumors already spreading in the evangelical community? Or does Sheldon simply have what's been dubbed "gaydar" -- a sixth-sense that supposedly empowers people to spot even closeted gay men and lesbians.
Update: Cohler-Esses e-mailed me the complete text of Sheldon's Haggard-related statements. To read them, click below.
We’re all sinners. Some of us hide our sins better than others. Ted, who I’ve talked to on this issue---some of us have known for awhile he had this problem. We weren’t sure just how to deal with it. Finally the escort blew it out of the water.
He and I had a discussion. He said homosexuality is genetic. I said no it isn’t. Never have amer acad of sciences, or other scientific bodies found such a consensus. I just knw he was covering up. They NEED to say that.
A note from Cohler-Esses: You'll note I slightly misquoted him (in the article) as saying "a lot" of others knew, when he said "some of us." The Jewish Week will run a correction in its next issue. I can only attribute my carelessness to it being 6 a.m. after a long night of election watching followed by three or four hours sleep.
Archived Comments
A slightly different take, using Mr. Powers' thoughts as a springboard...
You know, I'm convinced we all have a secret moral radar that tells us what's right and what's wrong. Evangelicals can call sin an abomination day and night if they want to, and yet I suspect most of them would not discriminate against a person based on his sinfulness, because they know deep down that all are sinners in God's sight.
Here, I'd like to think that these other people who knew of Haggard's sin were not just covering up for him, but were unwilling, when push came to shove, to discipline him for sin, that, deep down, they don't think is terribly unusual. I mean, if they thought this was really a problem for Haggard, presumably they'd have said something earlier. How hard can it be when someone privately confesses a sin to just totally expose them to the whole world? I suppose one could take the position that they're just hypocrites (imagine a sinner being hypocritical; unheard of), but I don't believe that's necessarily true.
I don't know whether sin is genetic or not, but whatever it is, it's deep seated. Some of these crazy God-lovers even call it "original." Sinners have existed in every society known to man, despite laws making it illegally virtually everywhere. People can refer to it as a preference if they want to, but this will ultimately come back to hurt them as every other mistake they've made has come back to haunt them. This idea is "natural law."
I mean, Evangelicals were the folks who said that slavery was not ordained of God (Wilberforce, anyone?), then when that proved true, said that segregation of the races was not ordained of God (Neuhaus, indeed). And when that proved true, they then said that sin was an abomination. I don't know what they'll say after society proves this wrong to them as well, but I'm sure they'll find some obscure verse in the Bible that they can twist to say that sin is evil.
==================================
The reality is that sins of all kinds have been with us since the beginning of time. Their prevalence or popularity in a particular society says nothing about their alignment with God's standard. Maybe we'll reach a day when homosexuality is considered just another choice. Maybe we'll decide the same thing about priests usings young boys, too. In neither case, though, will society's acceptance or lack thereof have a bearing on whether the behavior is right. The existence of a behavior, even if "deep seated", does not _ipso facto_ make it morally licit.
You have put things very well, Caleb. I would like to think that those who knew of his homosexuality were simply unwilling to damage the ministry and life of one whom they loved and cherished. I am not convinced of that as completely as I would like to be. I would hope that they might have had some lengthy conversations with him and suggested a more open and honest revealing of his life than came to be the case. It is sad and unfortunate, however it happened. I am not by any stretch of the imagination evangelical (as they define evanglical-although I am envangelical as one who want to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ) or a follower of Haggard. But it must be painful for him and his family as it turned out.
This quote, which I've lifted from Eric Zorn's Chicago Tribune blog, is rather mean-spirited. The underlying truth of it, though, is, well, funny.
If (ousted evangelical leader Ted) Haggard's unblinking congregation could sit and listen to such a liturgical Liberace week after week and not realize they were in the presence of someone who makes Barry Manilow in a full-length mink look butch, they really need to recalibrate their ability to detect prescription-strength doses of flamboyance.....His lying skills are so uproariously amateurish that, frankly, I think he needs some lessons from a pro like Dick Cheney, a man who can say, "I'm not currently saying this" and mean it...."Betty Bowers"
Marcia, thanks for posting that. Ever since this whole thing broke, I've been trying to find a way to express my own impression of Haggard's appearance in that big photograph they keep showing of him in the lobby of his temple of greed. I've been trying to excise the reference to a three dollar bill from the description and not making much progress on it. I guess some of these folks truly don't have much of a gaydar.
Tim C, I don't mind someone disagreeing with me, or even parodying what I write (which is generally fairly prone to parody). What I do mind is making light of a historic reality. You seem to suggest, by your parenthetical inclusion of a reference to William Wilberforce, that I was wrong in suggesting that American evangelicals supported both the institution of slavery, and later segregation and discrimination against blacks, both on biblical principles.
As you well know, William Wilberforce, by the way, a Church of England priest, who I have mentioned in other posts, led the anti-slavery movement in Great Britain in the early 1800s. He was not an american evangelical of any stripe, and was hated in the southern part of the United States. Southern american religious leaders argued that slavery was not only right, but was ordained of God. The Southern Baptist denomination was founded solely because the northern baptists were against slavery while the southern baptists were in favor of it. They believed this as fervently, Tim, as you believe that homosexuality was wrong. And, biblically, THEY WERE RIGHT.
The bible does not condemn slavery at any point, and in fact provides rules for the operation of slavery, including for the sale of one's own daughters into slavery. Now does that mean that slavery is right, and that we ought to start it up again? Of course not.
Likewise, in the 1950s and '60s, evangelical leaders including Jerry Falwell and his ilk preached that segregation and separation of the races was, again, not only proper, but was ordained of God. And, Tim, they believed this just as fervently as you believe that homosexuality is condemned by the bible and therefore wrong. And yes, other more liberal ministers argued otherwise, but in the south were far outnumbered by, as Earl Long used to call them, the grass eaters.
And now the same movement says that homosexuality is wrong, while the same non-evangelical churches who were against slavery and segregation, particularly the Episcopal Church, do not condemn gays and lesbians.
The score is simple: Evangelicals, wrong twice on social issues (three times if you count women's rights), Mainstream churches right twice (again three times if you count women's rights). As an old racetrack handicapper, I look at the track record of these organizations, and my answer on whom to believe is easy.
Marcia, thank you for posting that. I had been trying to express my own impression of that photo of Haggard's head looking out in the lobby of his temple of ease without using the phrase "three dollar bill" and hadn't been able to.
TimC, your theology is shaken but not stirred. You seem to suggest by your insertion of a parenthetical reference to William Wilberforce, the great Church of England leader who virtually singlehandedly defeated slavery in the British parliament, that I was wrong in my assessments of the history of the evangelical movement in America.
Perhaps you truly don't know that the reason the southern baptists split from their northern brethren was to support slavery, or that the leaders of other southern denominations, including the methodists and presbyterians, joined them in splitting from their main organizations. They believe, Tim, that slavery was ordained of god as fervently as you believe that homosexuality is wrong. And, biblically, they were right. Remember when citing the bible as the moral be all and end all that it does not condemn slavery in any manner and actually provides rules for its operation.
Fast forward 100 years, and the conservative religious leaders supported segregation. Billy Graham made such a splash as an integrationist because he was the only prominent evangelical to believe that way, though liberal churches, and particularly the Episcopal Church, were firmly opposed to segregation. And, Tim, these people believed that the bible ordained segregation as fervently as you believe it condemns homosexuality.
So, the score is simple: Progressive christians (and particularly the Episcopal Church and its Anglican affiliates), right twice on social issues (three times if you count women's rights), and the evangelicals, wrong twice on social issues (again, three times if you count women's rights). A handicapper knows to look at an organization's track record before putting too much stock in what it says.
The evangelicals were wrong in 1860, were wrong again in 1960, and on social issues, are still wrong.
Who is Caleb Powers anyway? He seems to presume to know everything about everyone, and as such is prone to paint with a broad brush. As a child of an evangelical pastor raised in the 50s and 60s, I was taught that people of every race and creed were God's children. Martin Luther King was always a hero to me, even though I lived in a county with only one black family! I now have black, evangelical in-laws. I reject Mr. Powers characterization of evangelicals in general based on the alleged positions of a few highly publicized leaders. True evangelicals have always loved their neighbors, even their gay ones, whether they morally agree with their lifestyles. Many evangelical leaders were instrumental in the civil rights movement. It is the liberals today who show such hatred, such moral arrogance, such intolerance of people of faith who believe that certain behaviors that are accepted by a large portion of society are, in fact, morally wrong.
TimC is correct. Acceptance by society of homosexuality does not make it morally right, anymore than acceptance of segregation years ago. God's standard should not and is not determined by popularity or political correctness.
Phillip: I know that caleb doesn't need anybody to speak on his behalf, However i think you are the one who misunderstood the point that he was trying to make. I grew up in the 1960's when segregation was very much a fact. There were no church leaders in KY that I know of who didn't preach about segregation of races. When in fact, there are several places where it mentions about races being mixed--Solomon and the queen of Sheba is supposedly one of the best examples. God did not want any other religions to defile the Israelites-- that is what most people IN their small minds really thought he meant races. I ask if you will read Romans 1:22-32. I think what Paul is trying to say, fits this article to a tee--that we as human beings have changed God into what each one of perceives in each of our own minds. Mine is not the same God to me, as it is to Caleb, as he is to you. So having said that--which of of us has the correct God? Just what is the correct religion? And how do we get back to the Way that Jesus Taught?
Philip, I don't doubt that there were some evangelicals who supported blacks in the civil rights movement. Unfortunately, they were not in the majority, and in fact were in the distinct minority. Will Campbell, for example, was virtually drummed out of the Southern Baptist church for his support of integration, and I'm not sure he has a formal connection to that denomination today.
The fact is that the White Citizens Councils that flourished in the south during the '50s and '60s, and the rank and file segregationists who supported them were overwhelmingly made up of "good" evangelicals and fundamentalists who thought that integration was as evil as you think homosexuality is today. They preached this doctrine from their pulpits.
If you can't deal with the historical facts, fine, but don't accuse me of misstating them.
That was a good post, Lisa. Thank you.
Another way of expressing what you suggest is in an old saying about the search for the "historical Jesus." It is suggested that this search is like looking down into a deep well, only to see our own face looking back up at us, reflected in the water at the bottom.
We all see Jesus, whether we admit it or not, as just another version of ourselves. People who are petty, dogmatic, and narrow minded teach that Jesus was petty, narrow minded and dogmatic.
And that is what is happening here. People who dislike gays and lesbians are able to justify that view by condemning them with scripture, just as church leaders in Kentucky who were racist justified segregation by scriptural references then.
The great myth of evangelical christianity is that evangelicals believe in the "whole" bible, or that they take their rules directly from the bible. There are thousands of rules in the bible that everyone ignores today. When was the last time you heard someone condemned for touching the skin of a dead pig, or heard someone justify selling his daughter into slavery by citing bible verses? And yet they are there, big as life, as are verses about shunning lepers and all manner of things.
As Bishop Sauls pointed out in his recent statement, divorce, other than for infidelity, is banned by a strict interpretation of the bible, and yet I never see any evangelicals lobbying the legislature to change the divorce laws.
So, it all boils down to what face you see looking back at you when you look for Jesus.
Evangelicals being "right" or "wrong" about something is propaganda at worst, logic fallacy at best. Ever hear of the fallacy of the undifferentiated middle? The word "Evangelical" covers multiple denominations, everybody from the Nazarenes to the Christian Reformed people. Saying that "all" evangelicals believe such-and-such on political issues is absurd.
It's just a dressed-up version of the flight from reason that goes, "Well, I know for sure I'm not a sinner and Jesus isn't the Son of God because this guy down the street from me do you know what he did you'd never believe it blah blah blah..."
Christianity's claims, nor the claims of any other religion for that matter, are not disproven by the moral successes or failures of its followers. Your Mormon neighbor might be a nice person, but that doesn't mean the angel Moroni really did give Joseph Smith magic eyeglasses.
Everybody with a molecule of knowledge knows that the Bible, and Jesus Christ specifically in light of His unconditional support of the Old Testament, forbids sex outside of marriage. Christianity isn't less stringent than what you usually hear -- it's more stringent. As G.K. Chesterton once wrote, it isn't that Christianity has been tried and found wanting; it's that it's been found hard, and not tried. It isn't Christianity's job to keep up with the times.
This is the same reason Caleb makes up these stories about the N.T. being written centuries after the fact. Clement (one of the "apostolic fathers") was quoting Matthew, Mark, and Luke in his writings back in 95 A.D. There are numerous Christian bishops of the time (dating between 95-150 A.D.) who did the same thing, and we have their writings (they're called the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and they are available on-line at ccel.org).
These aren't "Christian claims", but generic facts commonly known by academics, and long ago published and available to the reading public. But propagandists depend on a reader's ignorance and prejudices.
If you want to be homosexual, don't pretend to yourself there's some sort of secret, pro-homosexuality, pro-whatever Christianity out there that's been obscured, the poor thing, by all those lying church meanies. Da Vinci Code is a stupid myth for gullible people who also believe in Batboy and Nostradamus. C'mon...you know the Bible limits sex to marriage, and limits marriage to monogamy and heterosexuality. Besides, the most important issue is whether Jesus was God's Son or not, and whether He rose from the dead or not.
Jack, just to clarify, I've never said that the gospels were written "centuries" after Christ, just decades.
You're quite right about the references to them in the church fathers, though we might quibble about the exact dating. Certainly I'd agree that the canonical gospels were all written by 100 AD, with Mark, the earliest, traditionally dated about 70 AD.
You know, sometimes I think we all have a secret moral radar (not gaydar)that tells us what's right and what's wrong. Evangelicals can call homosexuality an abomination day and night if they want to, and yet I suspect most of them would not discriminate against a person based on sexual preference, because they know deep down that's not right.
Here, I'd like to think that these other people who knew of Haggard's bisexuality were not just covering up for him, but were unwilling, when push came to shove, to discipline him for a sexual preference that, deep down, they don't think is much of an abomination. I mean, if they thought this was really a problem for Haggard, presumably they'd have said something earlier. I suppose one could take the position that they're just hypocrites (imagine a conservative being hypocritical; unheard of), but I don't believe that's necessarily true.
I don't know whether homosexuality is genetic or not, but whatever it is, it's deep seated. Gays and lesbians have existed in every society known to man, despite laws making it illegally virtually everywhere until the late 20th century. Evangelicals can refer to it as a sin if they want to, but this will ultimately come back to hurt them as every other mistake they've made has come back to haunt them.
I mean, these were folks who said that slavery was ordained of God, then when that proved false, said that segregation of the races was ordained of God. And when that proved false, they then said that homosexuality was an abomination. I don't know what they'll say after society proves this wrong to them as well, but I'm sure they'll find someone else to discriminate against.