In a Christianity Today interview, Gayle Haggard responds to questions about her decision to stay with her husband after his infidelity became public. I’m thankful the Haggard’s are together. While there are biblical grounds for divorce (Matthew 19:9), and Gayle Haggard had them, restoration is the goal to be pursued. The question of whether or not a couple should remain together is one I address in Unpacking Forgiveness.
At the same time, in this interview, Mrs. Haggard questions how their relationship to the church was handled. Consider her response to this question:
You spend a significant portion of the book explaining the way the overseers treated your family, asking you to break ties with New Life and move out of the state. How did you view the Christian community differently after what happened?
I was disappointed because I so believe in the church. I was disappointed that people started believing the worst about Ted and that we were cut off from our church, which wasn’t representative of our church at all as a body. We had a family, relational church, but others made that decision and separated us from the church. That was devastating to me. I felt that not only was I being ripped and ravaged in my relationship with my husband but just a few days later was told that I no longer belonged at the church, so I felt that I was being ripped and ravaged by the church, or certain leaders. That was as devastating to me as what was going on in my marriage. I was so invested in both in our marriage and in our church. That did shake me, and it was a dark time for me as I tried to process through. But God who is the gentle restorer walked me through it. I haven’t lost my passion for the church, but I want the church to be the church and to stop denying the power of the gospel in the lives of people. (Read the rest of the interview here.)
It is unfortunate that Mrs. Haggard is critical of how this was handled. As I talk about in Unpacking Forgiveness, forgiveness doesn’t mean the elimination of consequences. With the level of leadership that Ted Haggard accepted at his church, came a proportionate accountability. There is simply no way the Haggard’s could have continued in a relationship with that particular body without being a terrible distraction.
Further, given his disqualification, the Haggard’s should have realized in this situation that repentance submits to the process.
Some who know the situation better than I might counter, “It was a very flawed process.” Of course, it was a flawed process. Until Christ comes back, how the church does things will always be flawed. And, the leaders should be accountable. But, in this case, accountability and critique should not come from the leader (or the family of the leader) when he so grievously betrayed their trust.
Your thoughts? Is it the Haggard’s place to critical of the process, flawed as it may have been?