Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
As Ted Haggard is making the rounds of talk shows to promote a documentary about his fall from grace and (alleged) redemption, there's more information emerging about his dalliances - including one with a young church volunteer:
Disgraced evangelical leader Ted Haggard's former church disclosed Friday that the gay sex scandal that caused his downfall extends to a young male church volunteer who reported having a sexual relationship with Haggard -- a revelation that comes as Haggard tries to repair his public image.Brady Boyd, who succeeded Haggard as senior pastor of the 10,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs, told The Associated Press that the man came forward to church officials in late 2006 shortly after a Denver male prostitute claimed to have had a three-year cash-for-sex relationship with Haggard.
And the church paid the volunteer off - on the condition that he keep his mouth shut about it:
Boyd said an "overwhelming pool of evidence" pointed to an "inappropriate, consensual sexual relationship" that "went on for a long period of time ... it wasn't a one-time act." Boyd said the man was in his early 20s at the time. He said he was certain the man was of legal age when it began...Boyd said the church reached a legal settlement to pay the man for counseling and college tuition, with one condition being that none of the parties involved discuss the matter publicly.
But that's not a payoff, of course:
Anticipating criticism of the settlement with the former church volunteer, Boyd said Friday that it was in the best interests of all involved. He would not name the volunteer or the settlement amount."It wasn't at all a settlement to make him be quiet or not tell his story," Boyd said. "Our desire was to help him. Here was a young man who wanted to get on with his life. We considered it more compassionate assistance -- certainly not hush money. I know what's what everyone will want to say because that's the most salacious thing to say, but that's not at all what it was."
He said that "secondarily, it's not great for our church either" that the story be told. Boyd said Haggard knew about the settlement two years ago.
In a letter e-mailed Friday to New Life Church members, Boyd said of the settlement and agreement not to talk: "This decision was made not as an attempt to conceal wrongdoings, but to protect him from those who would seek to exploit him. His actions now suggest that he has changed his mind."
Oh, of course.
Politics
Comments
And of course, Teabag Teddy is off on his lecture tour, so Boyd can take the fall for this one. It never ceases to amaze me just how credulous the KKKristians are. Did you know that the words "gullible" and "faithful" both have seven letters? Co-inky-dink? I think not.
Posted by: democommie | January 27, 2009 9:14 AM
"gullible" and "faithful" both have seven letters?
*cough*8*cough*
Posted by: Eamon Knight | January 27, 2009 10:00 AM
Yeah, honesty isn't in the church's best interest.
No, that's news to me. :PPosted by: Bourgeois_Rage | January 27, 2009 10:00 AM
The title of your post is a bit incorrect. If it was consensual then the guy is not a victim regardless of how much a slimeball Haggard is.
Posted by: Scott | January 27, 2009 10:01 AM
I honestly think Haggard could climb a tree just using his lips.
Posted by: Dwimr | January 27, 2009 10:08 AM
I am just wondering what type of "counseling" this young male is receiving? Hopefully he can escape that church and its influence over his life and get it back before he turns into someone like Haggard.
Posted by: yoshi | January 27, 2009 10:31 AM
As with President Clinton, I cannot understand this man's attraction to people with zero sense of discretion.
Ted, Ted, if you're reading this: Go find a nice closet-case like yourself--another pastor, say, or a married guy; i.e., someone who's got something to lose if he shoots his mouth off. Maybe you met someone attractive at homo-nomo camp?
Posted by: Molly, NYC | January 27, 2009 10:31 AM
Whatever their explanations are, we have to respect that. They know the truth and they can not escape that. It is up to them if they wanted to say the truth, there must be some reasons behind it. It better be good.
Posted by: long island girl | January 27, 2009 10:37 AM
Well, that gives new meaning to the name "New Life Church."
So...is anyone going to admit that this young volunteer didn't seem particularly depraved or disordered in any way other than having a steady gay relationship, and maybe that means they should all rethink their mindless hatred of gays? Or were the parishoners paid to shut up about that touchy subject too?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 27, 2009 10:39 AM
Ed,
I would suggest (respectfully of course) changing the term "victim" in the title. From what I see of the facts, he was not a victim, but a consenting adult in this relationship. Like Haggard, he seemed to be in the unfortunate position of having a homosexual orientation, acting on it, but still being associated with an evangelical organization that views homosexuality sinful. That leads to severe psychological trauma and vulnerability. So he may be a "victim" in that sense. But not, as I see it, in the sense that he was one of Haggard's "victims."
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 27, 2009 10:48 AM
I can think of no better way to stick it to Haggard (so to speak) than to buy a copy of the book Mike Jones wrote, "I Had To Say Something." That guy paid a steep price for principle, while Haggard is trying to con his way into the pocketbooks of the gullible with no principle whatsoever.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | January 27, 2009 10:52 AM
Okay, so spellene, not counteen, is my strong soot.
Posted by: democommie | January 27, 2009 10:53 AM
I thought about whether I should use the word victim or not here. I do agree that if it was a consensual adult relationship then this guy was not truly a victim. But it's unclear from the article just how consensual it was, and it seems obvious to me that Haggard was in a position of great authority over this young church volunteer, probably revered by him, and that seems, at a minimum, problematic to me. At the very least, the young man was victimized by being put into a really ugly situation by Haggard, being forced by the reality of Haggard being married and publicly anti-gay into something that they both thought was shameful and needed to hide. That is why I decided to go ahead and use that word, because of what Jon agrees can cause serious psychological damage. Whether he was also a victim in sense of genuine non-consent we won't really know until the young man tells his side of the story, which it appears he will soon. But I think he was a victim in other ways even without that.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 27, 2009 10:57 AM
Fair enough!
Posted by: Jon Rowe | January 27, 2009 11:01 AM
A previous pastor where I serve had an "indescretion" (it was sexual in nature without any touching, etc-"provocative pictures of two partially clothed young girls." Still in my book enough that the man should have been prosecuted criminally and defrocked) back in 1984; back when churches almost always looked the other way. The council found out and forced him to immediately retire. They had him send out a leeter that said he was tired and it was time.
That story worked until the mom decided to file a malpractice suit against the church two years later. Twenty-three years later there are still hard feelings around here.
Trying to keep things quiet never works! They should have hung Haggard outside of the closet and taken their lumps at the time the discovery was made.
Now the whole church has to live with the perception of what else are they hiding.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | January 27, 2009 11:29 AM
I really don't see much of a question as to whether this guy is a victim or not. Having been a young person in who interacted rather closely with leaders who were an important part of the church I grew up in, I can certainly attest to the vulnerable position I was in with respect to those leaders. While nothing of this sort ever happened to me, and while I like to think I was sharp enough that I could have avoided it, my desperation to rationalize my faith with feelings that contradicted that faith could easily have put me in a position to be similarly exploited.
While we simply cannot know what this guy was feeling and whether or not he was truly victimized, my own experience would lend me to believe that it is possible and even vary likely. My own contradictory feelings were more in a line with an interest in drugs and hetero sex. Had I run into church leaders who pushed me into those directions, I was ripe for exploitation. Not being stupid, there still would have been a part of me (conscious or not) that would know that what I was doing was a sin, i.e. contradicting my church's dogma.
When I try to apply my own contradictory feelings to someone who had the further contradictory interest in sex with other males, it paints a darker picture still. His own vulnerability was probably much worse than my own. Too, his underlying belief that what he was doing was a sin would probably be that much greater. But not great enough to deny his desires in the face of a leader he trusted, claiming that it was ok and providing him with justifications for his feelings. And to make it worse, it was the supreme leader of his church.
In a certain sense, this is not a whole lot different than a therapist fucking a patient. There is a similar degree of trust and vulnerability between true Believers and their clergy/church leaders. And I am not making a true scotsman fallacy here, what I am talking about is a deep seated psychological phenom. There was a large segment of my life, wherein I wasn't living a lifestyle conducive to most Christian dogma. Yet through much of that time I was still a true Believer. It's all about what's in the mind, not any subjective criteria.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 27, 2009 11:34 AM
Ed, I think the word you are looking for is "Sexual Harassment."
Posted by: KeithB | January 27, 2009 11:44 AM
Actually, I thought that was part of the joke, as in, "Did you know the word gullible isn't in the dictionary? Go look it up. And not only that, it only has 7 letters."
Posted by: chris | January 27, 2009 11:44 AM
If it was hush money...they would be demanding it back given all thats happened.
Posted by: Richard Eis | January 27, 2009 11:53 AM
DuWayne-There is NO difference! I am in a one-up power position from my members; just like a therapist is with a patient. In that respect, even if Haggard was single and openly gay-it would still have been wrong to enter into any type of romantic/sexual relationship with this of-age man AS LONG AS HE WAS HIS PASTOR!
Fifty years ago, when almost all pastors were first career and were not allowed to be married while in seminary, it was common practice for the pastor to meet his wife in his first parish. Today, even that is a big no-no that could get you defrocked and permanently removed from being a pastor.
BTW DuWayne, I owe you an e-mail about the ELCA Sexuality discussion from a few months ago. I will get that to you soon...I promise;-) I do still have your e-mail address.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | January 27, 2009 12:13 PM
Am I the only one that thinks the timing of this "revelation" is just too convenient and just possibly timed to give a boost to HBO's piece on Haggard? Just wondering.
Posted by: TomTallis | January 27, 2009 3:19 PM
TomTallis stated:
I read somewhere that the church member who received a settlement was explicit in noting that the HBO special was his sole motivation for going public. I believe he was attempting to preemptively fisk the characterization of Haggard in that special as false.
That begs the question on how the HBO producers will edit their production to accommodate this new revelation.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 27, 2009 5:15 PM
Rev.AJB -
(not that I would anyways) I won't hold it against you, if you check out and/or join the discussion on eugenics at the click of my name.....
Posted by: DuWayne | January 27, 2009 6:17 PM
Well, the HBO special might have some more serious editing cuts, now that the young man has given an interview to NewsChannel 13 in Denver.
Posted by: democommie | January 28, 2009 7:54 AM
@Dwimr: "I honestly think Haggard could climb a tree just using his lips"
Wouldn't he just suck the bark off?
Posted by: DPSisler | January 28, 2009 12:55 PM
If it was hush money...they would be demanding it back given all thats happened.
Posted by: Richard Eis | January 27, 2009 11:53 AM
That is friggin' hilarious. You did intend it to be? Yes?
Posted by: democommie | January 29, 2009 8:14 AM
Hey, Mr. Haggard on Larry King live says he no longer has the gay.
Posted by: SLC | January 29, 2009 9:58 PM
Yeah, Ted's really 'completely heterosexual'. [/sarcasm] -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 29, 2009 10:34 PM
Re DingoJack
It should also be noted that Mr. Haggard also declined to answer a question as to whether he had other liaisons then the two which have been made public.
Posted by: SLC | January 30, 2009 7:03 AM