I went in quite skeptically. I know a couple persons who knew/know Ted, and they describe him as something of a meglomaniac. No surprise, Alexandra Pelosi paints Ted as a sympathetic figure. In fact, using footage from her earlier documentary that features Haggard, it's clear that she has a real affection for him. Through the doc and the LKL appearance, I couldn't really get a handle on Ted. He's pretty circumspect on many issues; for instance, he just wouldn't answer the question when a caller from Orlando who described himself as a gay Christian man asked Ted about the possibilities of being a gay Christian. Ted's response was basically: read your Bible and get into a good church. Ted obviously doesn't feel the authority to judge anyone right now, which is surely smart on his part.
What stunned me, both in the doc and more acutely on LKL, was Gayle Haggard. Either she is one of the finest actors I've ever seen, or she is one of the most spiritually and psychologically
healthy persons on this planet. She answered every question with composure. She's not the stand-by-your-man-no-matter-what, mindless, conservative evangelical woman that some have portrayed her to be. Nor is she the unkempt, sexually uninterested wife that Mark Driscoll infamously insinuated when the scandal broke (of course, Mark's orginal post is gone, but the Internet never forgets!).She is, instead, thoughtful, kind, gracious, and forgiving. She has stuck with Ted through a truly horrific experience. She has accepted his remorse and granted him forgiveness. And, as a cherry on top, the Haggard's eldest son, Marcus, joined them for the last bit on LKL and he was even more composed than Gayle. This is a truly extraordinary family...
...Or, they are positioning themselves for a new career. I've been told by one insider that the Haggards, basically broke, are hoping to establish an income by writing and speaking about their trials. Indeed, at the end of LKL, both Gayle and Ted said several times that they want to "communicate their story." Fishing for a book deal? Speaking gigs? A reality TV show? Very possibly. So, my cynical side has to acknowledge the possibility that Gayle's (and Ted's and Marcus's) grace and composure is actually a patina, covering a family in great distress trying to dig themselves out of a massive financial hole.
I suppose time will tell.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
RobtheRev: If he is gay in sexual orientation, as it certianly appears, I do believe self-acceptance of his sexual orientation would be spiritually and psychologically healthier.
A Walker: He already has admitted that he has male attractions. The point about Haggard is that he is an perfect example that gays *can,* for the sake of raising a family, partner with a wonderful companion of the opposite sex and produce nice kids and a life-long relationship. He used his free will to do so.
Sure he's committed adultery, but heterosexuals struggle with sexual fidelity too. So what. It doesn't diminish his life-long relationship with Gayle and his kids, who are his own flesh and blood and Gayle's flesh and blood. That's a great achievement. Kudos to Ted and Gayle.
Seems to me, Haggard, for a gay man, has a good thing going! He has used his mind power (will power) to create a beautiful family, which he has consistently placed above some trivial and adolescent "identity fixation."
People have free wills, and they can use them if they want to do so. Ted has used his mind to downplay his male attraction and play up the value of creating a family with a person of the opposite sex. In the end, he has a great life partner and children. Not bad at all. Hats off to Ted and Gayle.
TheRobBot: have been in a gay relationship for a little more than 7 years now. But I have phases where I question this almost as much as I question my faith. So I'd call me a general doubter (and I'm NOT glad about it).
A Walker: Thanks for sharing. I respect honesty everywhere I see it.
TheRobBot: "A Walker" implying that gay relationships were all about sex and romance as opposed to heterosexual marriages
A Walker: I accept your point, and I should have been more careful with my words. Perhaps my comments about that should be more narrowly applied to the gay activists I have met and seen. For example, I've witnessed multiple gay pride parades and other such gay pageantry in major cities (public downtown areas), and I have to say it was all rated XXX. I have yet to witness even one heterosexual pride parade where people are on floats and stages simulating fellatio and group sex and cross dressing -- all to music and drums and with confetti etc. So, if you wander why heteros sometimes describe gays as sexual obsessives, just blame those groups for giving all gays a bad name.
TheRobBot: for the most part your reasoning is coherent and sensible
A Walker: Thanks.
TheRobBot: You should acknoledge the fact that there are same-sex couples out there who don't have sex or romance at the center of their relationship.
A Walker: I accept that point.
TheRobBot: I know that there are a lot of gay people who don't think like this, who are primarily looking for fun and quick pleasures... but this is no different from a lot of heterosexual people.
A Walker: I agree that many gays desire committed relationships. But I suspect there's a biological roadblock involved there that may drive many gay activists to come across as sexual obsessives. In males, sex drive is extraordinarily strong (compared to females), and men tend to naturally crave many different partners. If men simply allow their nature free rein, they are unleashing a tempest, a beast, a tsunami. A planet of all men would be a sexually supercharged planet, naturally. And that's the gay male environment---and I suspect it's difficult to tame. It's a freight train that gets off the tracks.
Fortunately, we don't have such a planet. Male partnerships with women *force the male to civilize himself into some semblance of sexual self control*, for women aren't as libidinous as men (so he has no choice), and the male is held in check due to the children/family considerations. These are civilizing forces, and they are good for individuals and for societies.
TheRobBot: I wish for you to acknoledge that ther are gay relationships that are built on more than romance and sex
A Walker: Again, I acknowledge that.
TheRobBot: I believe sexuality is still an important part of a relationship. And I don't even mean the act itself, but the feeling of wholeness when holding each others hand, the leap the heart makes when you look into each others eyes, etc.
A Walker: For most heterosexual marriages, the romance you are describing fades dramatically but transfers into a feeling of commitment and gratitude for the daily role each partner has in raising, nurturing, and educating a community of people. The sex no longer functions as it did in attracting the mate at the beginning. It changes. It's still nice, but it's role is extraordinarily limited both in time and though spent on it. Anyone, gay or straight, could do this. However, I admit, gays like Haggard would have to desire this vision of "family life" above "sexual desire questing" or "sexual identity" or whatever. (Having said that, I'm quite confident Ted enjoys sex with Gayle, for sex is physically pleasurable however one gets it.)
TheRobBot: you could say that what I describe is very different from a heterosexual marriage and maybe you are even right about this.
A Walker: I think we are describing somewhat different things, though, again, I would never want to diminish the legitimate friendship bonds that you have had. But remember, Ted Haggard has legitimate friendship bonds with Gayle and his kids, and this was made possible by Haggard's use of his free will to pursuit that each day of the past however many years they've been married.
TheRobBot: I still think that it is best for kids to have both male and female bonding.
A Walker: Personally, I'm grateful that I had both a mother and a father. They each gave me very different education, life lessons, and experiences. I feel I'm a more well-adjusted human because I had long-term experiential input from both halves of our species.
Thanks for commenting, TheRobBot. I appreciate everything you've said, and your English is quite good. Sadly, I can't speak any German.
Hi again,
I know I didn't want to get tangled up in this but I just want to clarify a couple of things.
First: I'm not sure if you (A Walker) were implying this by your choice of capitalization but I have nothing to do with "Rob the Rev", despite the name. :)
Now for a couple of things you wrote.
A Walker: (...) Perhaps my comments about that should be more narrowly applied to the gay activists I have met and seen. For example, I've witnessed multiple gay pride parades (...) So, if you wander why heteros sometimes describe gays as sexual obsessives, just blame those groups for giving all gays a bad name.
therobbot: Believe me, I do. I get sick watching this. But there are also heterosexual (at least partially) parades like this that make me feel just as sick (like the "Love Parade" that used to take place in Germany and imho gave Love a really bad name). I can see, though, that gay parades like this tend to be more prominent and I wish it weren't so. I know there are many gays who generally feel the way I do. I also know that a lot of them think they shouldn't criticize these parades because of "unity" in the gay community or whatever. I don't feel this way and I feel it is very unhealthy and dangerous to put sex at the center of your life. But then I have to admit I only know these parades from TV. The only gay parade I witnessed in my home town (not participating but walking by) was actually more like a normal demonstration. I acknoledge that it might be different in bigger cities...
A Walker: (...) In males, sex drive is extraordinarily strong (compared to females), and men tend to naturally crave many different partners.
therobbot: Agreed
A Walker: A planet of all men would be a sexually supercharged planet, naturally. And that's the gay male environment---and I suspect it's difficult to tame. It's a freight train that gets off the tracks.
therobbot: Well, I'm not so sure about this. Again, I can only speak for myself but I don't really see how this is so different from us wanting to be in a monogamous, faithful, committed and lifelong relationship. Sure, I see your point that there might be a danger of gay relationships where both allow each other to give in to their desires and be promiscous. I don't know. I can't imagine it because I couldn't imagine having the same level of trust with my partner ever again after this. I don't know... I kind of see the danger you describe here, I just don't personally know any gay people who think like this. But then I have to admit that I was never really around the "gay scene" and also that when looking at e.g. gay websites (and I'm talking about information sites) a lot of times there's sex content around the corner and the idea of promiscuity seems to be more prominent there then elsewhere. However, this in itself would be more of an argument *for* committed gay relationships. Oh, and it is a big argument for lesbian relationships ;)
A Walker: for women aren't as libidinous as men (so he has no choice), and the male is held in check due to the children/family considerations. These are civilizing forces, and they are good for individuals and for societies.
therobbot: Agreed with you here. Just believe me that there is also lots of having to hold back your sexual desires in a gay relationship. It's not as if we are all sexed up all the time. Quite the contrary.
A Walker: For most heterosexual marriages, the romance you are describing fades dramatically but transfers into a feeling of commitment and gratitude for the daily role each partner has in raising, nurturing, and educating a community of people (...)
therobbot: Again, I'm not sure if this is so different here. I have to admit (as I did before) there is a quality when you have kids that we don't have. But I wouldn't necessarily name the things I descibed as "romance", though this is part of it. The "holding each others hands" and "looking into each others eyes" that I descibed was more of the feeling I sometimes imagine when watching very old couples. It is quite different from the sensation that was there in the beginning of the relationship (even though this is also sometimes there, still). And this is ok. As with sex, I think that relationships - heterosexual or homosexual - that are centered around romantic feelings or infatuation have a serious problem.
A Walker: (Having said that, I'm quite confident Ted enjoys sex with Gayle, for sex is physically pleasurable however one gets it.)
therobbot: Well, maybe. I wouldn't want to judge this. And also I wouldn't want to judge the decisions Ted or anyone in his situation is making. If what he does is best for him and his family I wish him all the best. I agree with you that the wellbeing of the family and especially the kids is more important than his personal pursue of happiness. I also think however that there are cases where it was best for everyone involved to part ways. I think this isn't ours to judge and I wish this family all the best.
A Walker: (...) But remember, Ted Haggard has legitimate friendship bonds with Gayle and his kids, and this was made possible by Haggard's use of his free will to pursuit that each day of the past however many years they've been married.
therobbot: It might have been a bad idea to choose this blog entry to write my comment but let me say again that I'm not here to tell Ted Haggard what to do or even judge what he's doing or did. For the most part I'm trying to always give people the benefit of doubt and suppose that they have the best intentions with what they are doing. This doesn't mean that I say that everything people do is right.
A Walker: Personally, I'm grateful that I had both a mother and a father. (...)
therobbot: I can agree with that and feel the same for myself.
A Walker: Thanks for commenting, TheRobBot. I appreciate everything you've said, and your English is quite good.
therobbot: Thanks for the compliment. Also, thank you for the conversation. I appreciate it. And let me tell you again that I respect your point of view. The last time I was in such a conversation online I was more on your side of the argument. I also hope that maybe my point of view helped to extend your love and understanding toward us a little. I didn't find your other comments hateful or anything (far from it) - otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to talk to you. But
always remember that the internet is a very unpersonal medium and it's hard to transmit emotions over it. It might sometimes be easier to get your point across if you try to put yourself in our position first - just as I feel you did with your reply to my comment. So thanks again.
I think you hit the nail on the head with that last paragraph! They are trying to portray themselves as victims in this "Biblical Epic", even calling their move to arizona "the Exile" as if it had been ordained from on high! What a load!
He screwed around and she found out--it happens all the time, all around the world--their story is a very common one, if sordid.
I don't think he is through with his journey--we'll see how long it lasts. I DO wish him & his family the best; however, I don't think they are on a righteous path. He should leave her and deal with his sexuality like a man, honestly.
Interesting how "friends" call Ted a meglomaniac and more. When he was on top of the world most of them couldn't get close enough, spend enough time with or look for every opportunity possible to be identified with him.
Now - many are afraid to be seen with him, say anything good about him or otherwise come alongside him in his difficult journey to wholeness. Boy - that's just like Jesus isn't it!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.