Of sin and schadenfreude
So if you missed it, a prominent conservative evangelical preacher from Colorado, Ted Haggard was forced to resign from his church and confess to at least some of a homosexual escort’s allegations that he was paying for meth-fuelled gay sex while campaigning against same sex marriage. I don’t really want to add to the discussion of this. I actually don’t pay a lot of attention to US evangelicals so until the news came out, I didn’t really know who this guy was.
However, I had a couple of thoughts about this generally. It seems to me that if there is an element of the culture wars to be found in the worldwide christian church (and I believe that there is), it tends to show us all in the worst and least Christian light. For those that disagree with Haggard’s politics or theology, this dramatic downfall seems to be almost a gift. In one fell swoop everything he has ever preached, believed or created is completely undermined. His entire ministry will now forever be appended with an implied footnote - yeah, he grew this church from nothing to 14,000 people and had the ear of the president, but it turns out he was a fag, so what does that tell ya?
At once, he becomes the poster child for “those hypocritical conservatives” or, more broadly, “those hypocritical Christians”. However, none of this really logically follows in my view. A thriving sub-set of preachers and speakers on issues of sexual sin speak from a background of self-declared sexual struggle (a variation of the “I have conquered my evil thoughts” or “I have embraced that part of me that I once thought was sinful”). Obviously the guy is in crisis right now, but there doesn’t seem to me to be any reason why he couldn’t pursue his calling in some appropriately honest and forgiven way in the future.
As I have said, before the last week or so, I wouldn’t have known Ted Haggard if I tripped over him. With only the most casual glance over his political and theological positions, I am fairly confident that I would have disagreed with him on a whole range of issues. However I confess to being very uncomfortable with the implied breathless glee that comes with reports of yet another fallen moral crusader. I just can’t be pleased and self-righteous about the fact that a guy’s life has unravelled through his own sinfulness.
Similarly I can’t summon much shame and chagrin when people point out that leaders and speakers who influence my thoughts once wrote a couple of sentences which could be understood to be heretical, or that they once extended support to someone who it later turns out is not worthy of support.
I believe that in this “culture war” atmosphere, more and more we seem to take joy from the failings of others and use them as a reason to ignore or de-emphasise their point of view. Serious and major mistakes such as the ones I have been reading about appear to lend credence to the idea that smaller, even petty, shortcomings should similarly disentitle someone to express a political or theological opinion.
In Ben Elton’s book Blast from the Past he paints a picture of the US military in which the most important quality to acheive peace time promotion is to be innoffensive and free of controversy. The book suggests that in a climate which is anxious to stamp out scandal, the only people likely to assume positions of power are those that are too ineffectual to do the job. I wonder if the same can be said of moral leadership.
Some of my greatest spiritual heroes are people who have struggled with decisions about what is right or not. Sometimes they have made mistakes. But I always thought that this made them stronger. I like that Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrestled with his own conscience about whether to be involved in an assasination plot as an expression of his faith. I admire the fact that Oscar Romero was originally appointed ArchBishop of El Salvador because he had a record of turning a blind eye to injustice. I like that Luther made enemies and offended people. I like that one of the people I think most perfectly embodies the Christian ideal - Gandhi - was unashamedly not Christian.
However I wonder whether the church still has the ability to allow people to be flawed and in leadership. Our whole religion is based on the idea of redemption and forgiveness, but we allow so little of it with our leaders. I know that some of the people who comment here will jump to the situation of leaders who engage in spiritual abuse, but that is not my primary concern in this post.
My question is this. Does the global church and the public have the will and ability to embrace and support moral leaders with moral flaws? Or will we be unable to resist using those moral flaws to sink our opponents, and contribute to the elevation of the bland and inoffensive?
PS. I think that much of the conservative evangelical comment on this situation has been incredibly grace-filled, which is nice. The quotes from church members in the article I linked were lovely, but seemed to suggest that Haggard was no longer a part of the community - I hope that is not true, or at least that he and his family would continue to be pastorally cared for elsewhere.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Big Kev,
of course there were prophets way back then but there is no need now because we have the complete bible.
I didn’t say the bible said that.
You are suffering from Lancitis.
Toddy what do your modern day prophets say?
December 1st, 2006 at 3:01 pm
What the? We don’t have prophets because we have the complete bible - and yet the bible tells us that some are called to be prophets, some apostles, some evangelists some pastors and some teachers - but then hey - you obviosuly don’t read your bible - cogitate on that for a while - or read 1 Corinthians 5 I think it relates as well
December 1st, 2006 at 3:19 pm
My apologies for confusing matters back there Homer… I meant to write widower not widow… I’m assuming we’re talking about men here re. bishops and deacons.
No, my next question about deacons and bishops really relates to those who are married but infertile… what if a man has a reverent wife, but is unable to prove that “he is able to keep his children under control with all dignity” because he has been unable to have any?
Could he demonstrate his fitness for these roles in any other way?
December 1st, 2006 at 3:27 pm
“modern day prophets”?
“modern day prophets”?
what do you mean, modern day prophets?
December 1st, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Greg, do we have any Apostles?
It is useful to use your head when reading the bible.
I ask again what more could a prophet say than that is in the bible.
Janet,
The asnwer would seem obvious if he has no children to manage.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Thanks Homer. You are a patient man.
Can I ask you to describe what the role of bishops and elders is?
You mentioned that out of the Ephesians roles that maybe an evangelist or a pastor could be single and childless… just not a bishop or elder? Is that right?
December 1st, 2006 at 5:44 pm
See Homer if I got this. There are no prophets because we have the BIBLE = now that we have the BIBLE we don’t need what the BIBLE says we have…. Because YOU said so, and not because the BIBLE said so.
What SCRIPTURAL PROOF are you basing your thought on??? Is this just YOUR OPINION???
December 1st, 2006 at 6:44 pm
then Big Kev you tell me the local apostle at your place.
Enlarge us on just what a prophet would add to our knowledge that is not in the bible?
At that stage they had no bible so it makes sense they had prophets.
Once they had the bible in place prophets became redundant.
no Janet I never mentioned that at all.
December 1st, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Sorry, you’re right… I’ve read back and that was someone else.
So… can single people exercise ANY church leadership in your view?
Let’s say they can’t be bishops or deacons… what about other forms of leadership? Preaching? Teaching? Administration? Evangelism?
December 1st, 2006 at 9:22 pm
You are an absolute idiont and a first class moron Homer - an Apostle is one who is sent - and guess what…missionaries just might fall into that categorie (and not just missiaries to Africa, South Amreica etc - missionaries to Melbourne, Sydney - The Central Coast!!!), church planters…all are apostles and operate as such.
Prophets are those who tell forth the word of God…You young Homer may well operate under a prophetic ministry. You need alot of work and a grat deal more grace befoer you wil ever be an effective prphet - but you do ahve a passion for the word of God and righteousness. Lance seems to me to have a sense of the prophet.
These ministries are in opertion today and it is the neglect of them that has brought the church to the unbalanced place in which it finds itself in these times. I believe that it wont be until we have the full operation of each of the 5 ministries in our communities and in our leadership that we will experience the phenominal growth the early church experienced.
You shuold read The Shape of Things To Come
I note that this discusion has occured here abut a year aog and is worth revisitng some of the posts in that thread http://www.signposts.org.au/2005/07/19/five-fold-ministry/
from here: http://www.churchinperth.com/site/adetails.asp?ArticleID=666
we get an decent rebuttal of your position Homer:
Your position is tenuous at best and ridiculous for the most part.
Love and kisses
Greg
December 1st, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Rev, Lance, Bec… I see your points.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:32 pm
So Homer, they did not have the bible when John the Baptist came? Did you ever hear of the Old Testement? Was not the words of the Old testement good enough? Oh, and then there were prophets in the new testement too. But then on some magical day when a group of men, who were infallible, said this is the bible, then all prophecy stopped. But ofcourse the pope can’t be infallible because he is just a man, but they were infallibel even though they were men, but they were being lead by the Spirit and the pope isn’t! Why?
Cause homer said so. And those worthless catholics are not married so they aren’t worth their weight in shit anyways!
Homer, once again, you have proved you are an idiot, and the worst kind of idiot, one who thinks himself wise.
rev
December 2nd, 2006 at 1:39 am
Having come across this site a few weeks ago via another ‘Christian’ site, I have been reading the various topics and the comments with a mixture of interest, amusement and horror. Whilst many of the comments are well thought out discussions of the topis at hand, many others are just abusive attacks on others who dare to have a differing opinion. There is obviously a lot of history between “Bring back EP at LP” and a number of you and he seems to rile you up very easily with his manner. Rev, I see from your blog that you really are some sort of minister, yet you seem very quick to use what I would think is language unbecoming of a church leader - shit, idiot etc. Do you really need to resort to this style of writing? Is your aim to shock, attack for the fun of it all, or what? Is is only “EP at LP” that gets this treatment?
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:08 am
simmo - For what it’s worth I think the regulars here are very familiar with each other and don’t take much offence or give much offence to each other with their comments and I think Homer enjoys a bit of a stir and dishes out himself. I could be wrong, that’s generally how I read it. I wouldn’t come to hasty judgements, I just overlook it and consider it familiar, sometimes heated exchanges, generally. Freedom to express ones self is better than veiled contempt or seething quietly. Just my opinion, I shouldn’t really answer for others. There were a couple of threads I didn’t feel comfortable with it or want to get involved but freedom is like that. I’m free, they’re free, you’re free. Phil or Dan often step in to calm things if it ever gets really nasty, this way at least it remains genuine.
Homer,
I said I wouldn’t play anymore if you don’t address previous arguments because we get further and further away from the discussion but I’ve changed my mind and can’t help jumping back into the vortex. As an aside I also believe in the fivefold ministry.
Like I said much earlier homer, (and you’re no fun because you don’t answer simple honest questions) in the early church the words for elder and overseer were interchangeable, they spoke more of function than office. An apostle could be an elder or overseer when he was staying amongst a congregation. I quoted a Catholic theologian and historian whom I don’t always agree with but can’t be just fobbed off either which is what you did.
Here’s the quote again:
“the term for bishop, episcopos (”overseer”), was fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation, sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area, and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.”
Of the interchangeable nature of the terms for elder and overseer in the early church, it’s not just Catholics saying that, Luis Burkhof, whom you referred to earlier, an eminent reformed theologian, says the same thing and it’s hard to find anyone who disagrees.
See Burkhof’s Systematic Theology Part 5, chapter 3, section 3, Officers of the Church Part 2, paragraph 1:
“The two terms are often used interchangeably”
Now, with that established I said it was implied that Paul was a bishop, not that he was specifically described as ‘episcopos’, but it’s assumed by many theologians that he performed the function of overseer, for instance in acts 6
“…17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called to himself the elders of the assembly.
When they had come to him, he said to them, “You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you all the time,
serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears, and with trials which happened to me by the plots of the Jews;
how I didn’t shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, teaching you publicly and from house to house,”
Acts 20:17-20
Your thinking in terms of titles and I’m not. It wasn’t until the second century that they became fixed terms.
Further, he cared for churches as his children, received reports and gave instruction for their direction. Oversaw and cared for their direction.
It’s assumed that he was Apostle and overseer in that instance and many others. That’s why scholars like Zodhiates can say (and I kill two birds with one stone here by quoting a little extra):
“”The husband of one wife” does not mean that he, the Bishop or the Deacon, was never married before. Nor does it mean that in order to be a Bishop or a Deacon, one must be married. Paul was certainly considered both a Bishop and a Deacon, and he was never married…..One of the meanings of this expression, but not the principle one, is that the bishop or the deacon should not be married to more than one woman simultaneously. The expression ‘mias gunaikos’ is known in Greek grammar as an attributive genitive, which is equivalent to an adjective, and would have been better translated as “one-woman’s husband”, not a ladies man in other words. The total context speaks of the moral conduct of the bishop and the deacon. He should be totally dedicated to his wife and not be flirtatious. Paul brings out the same thought in the similar passage in Titus 1:6 where the expression is exactly the same, except as pertaining to a woman that she should be one man’s woman, not flirting with other men”
The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible Compiled and Edited by Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D. Page 1475.
Your assertion that Apostles were not overseers is false in the first place because Peter called himself Elder which was the same as overseer as already established:
“…1 I [Peter] exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and who will also share in the glory that will be revealed.
Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not under compulsion, but voluntarily, not for dishonest gain, but willingly;
neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves examples to the flock.”
1 Peter 5:1-3
Now the distinction I make between the Pastors of the fivefold ministry and overseers is that pastors have a duty more to individual members whereas overseers, to the direction and care of congregations or churches as a whole.
Now I know this won’t be satisfactory for you and I understand that your entire religion hangs on these questions whereas for me they’re purely academic and represent no challenge to my faith whatsoever, whether Paul be established bishop or not doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. I believe he was but it doesn’t change anything for me at all and it was a side issue to start with. I’m more interested in people getting the compassion and understanding due to them by they’re brothers and sisters. I think your and your church’s extreme concentration on the letter is legalistic and unnecessarily prohibitive and says more about social control and authoritarianism than Christianity. But that’s my view, you obviously like it and that’s up to you.
Even Calvin makes the qualifications for bishops and deacons generally relating to character:
A deacon “ought not to be marked by any disgrace that would detract from his authority. There will certainly not be found a man who is free from every fault, but it is one thing to be burdened with ordinary faults that do not hurt a man´s reputation, because the most excellent men share them, but quite another to have a name that is held in infamy and besmirched by some scandalous disgrace. Thus, in order that the bishops may not lack authority, he gives charge that those who are chosen should be of good and honorable reputation, and free of any extraordinary fault. Also, he is not merely directing Timothy as to the sort of men he should choose but he is reminding all who aspire to the office that they should carefully examine their own life” (Commentary on I Timothy 3:2).
Calvinists and Orthodox Presbyterians also have it that: “As an apostle Paul was also an elder, an overseer among the flock of God. Paul would disqualify himself from being an elder if he meant by “husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3:2 that an elder must be married. If an overseer such as Paul can be unmarried, then a deacon may also be unmarried….This requirement means that if a man is married or has been married, he must not have two wives in God’s sight. This is an express prohibition of polygamy for a deacon. This same requirement is given in I Timothy 3.2 for the office of overseer. In the first century many men had more than one wife.”
Will you kindly tell me now for a start why you think four scholars, highly respected in reformed circles are “unlikely to be correct” about Phoebe the Deacon, not even deaconess which might possibly imply she was married to a deacon, but Phoebe the deacon, the female deacon, and why Paul held her in such high esteem and why the church at Rome was told to assist her in whatever she needed when he could have sent a man on such a long and important mission?
December 2nd, 2006 at 6:40 am
very good posts halieus, ofcourse they won’t do any good as Homer has never changed his mind on anything ever.
Simmo, I reject the notion of the naughty word list. The word idiot is not on any list I have ever read. But if you are refering to my treatment of Homer, I tend to be fairly civil, but aggressive with most people. Homer however has continued to apply horrible arguementation prinicples and then blame others bible knowledge for not knowing what he said. He has refused to answer point blank questions by saying, if you don’t know the answer to that then you are beyond help. He has ridiculously thrown out bible chapters to back up his arguements with absolutely no commentary or reference. (once no the charge that he was acting like a pharisee he explained to us all “go read John” after weeks of proding he finally told us that pharisees didn’t believe in Jesus so he couldn’t be one) He never actually engages in the arguement, but rather insults our communications skills, our bible knowledge and even questions our salvation. So when I speak to Homer, I take my gloves off, hoping that maybe something I say might penetrate his stiff necked stuborness. So far no luck.
But thanks for your concern about me, I appreciate it.
and thanks for visiting my site.
rev
December 2nd, 2006 at 6:43 am
Simmo - Boy oh boy, where to start. I for one have been a defender of Homer, nad I still am. But he is frustrating to understand sometimes. He does not answer my questions - unless it is with a question, which is a manipulative way to dialogue, and avoids getting to the truth. If you are avoiding getting to the truth, then you already know you are wrong. Go back and see how many people have tried to dialogue with him and see his responses. A short time is not enough time to see the whole story… which promprted my resopnse to Rev, Bec and Lance that I see thier point.
So Simmo - what does YOUR BIBLE say about New Testament Prophetic ministry?
December 2nd, 2006 at 6:45 am
Rev - way to go…not cussing him out.
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:09 am
Hey Kev, don’t make me go Lance on you!
rev
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:58 am
Yeah, i guess your poopie words don’t carry as much weight as his _)(*&^%% words
December 2nd, 2006 at 9:59 am
Rev - No, ‘idiot’ is not on the naughty word list but it is an aggressive attack word to use against someone, and if you want a biblical reference against it I’ll go with Mt 5:22. But I can see that you two obviously have a long history of disagreement so perhaps venting some frstration in understandable.
akevin - I am undecided on whether prophetic ministry applies today. To me there are some good arguments either way, however the biggest thing I have against modern day prophesy is the way it can be misused and confusing to people. It is very easy for people to say “God told me” when ultimately they should have said “I think”. I have in the past seen people badly shaken in their faith because things that have been taken as a word from God have not come to pass.
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:58 am
Hi Simmo. I’m guessing you’re from the US given your posting times… so it might be worth mentioning that putting down (”slagging off”) other people is a bit of a national pastime in Australia… particularly by men. They’re likely to call their best mate a silly old bugger, or a silly bastard, etc. etc. Ironic humor exploiting others’ weak points is staple Australian humour. (I’m not saying this is good or godly of course) What this means is that the “bar” for what you can get away with without actually offending people is set pretty high compared to US standards.
Now Homer (Bring back EP at LP) does cop a lot of flak on Signposts, he’s been copping it for years, and keeps coming back for more… so I’m assuming he can’t be too badly offended. Although I would never personally use words like first class moron, idiot and so forth, (and to give him credit, Homer never flings these kinds of terms back) this is an uncensored site where some people have been getting stuck in for years… it can seem a bit confronting at first, but you kind of get used to it.
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:19 am
“Ted Haggard, former senior pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs, is in Arizona to find “spiritual and emotional” counseling, a church official said Thursday.
New Life associate pastor Rob Brendle said Haggard and his wife, Gayle, will spend the next several weeks at the unnamed facility.
Haggard resigned as senior pastor and as president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals after reports about his involvement with a male escort.
On Thursday, 9News reported that Haggard’s attorney, Leonard Chesler, said that Haggard has begun seeing a private therapist and that he and his wife will move to the out-of- state restoration center.
Both will move to the center for the first phase of the restoration, then Haggard’s wife will move back to Colorado Springs “to be with her children and her women’s church groups,” 9News reported
Haggard, according to Chesler, has told him he “will not return to the pulpit until he is certain that he will cause his congregation no further damage,” according to the television station.”
From http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4752721
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:28 am
Janet, the Rev is American. This just shows how far he has assimilated into Australian culture.
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:38 am
The Rev likes cricket. That makes him an honorary Aussie by my reckoning.
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Big Kev,
You said I denied that prophets were in existence or words to that event in the N/T. I didn’t.
I never said prophets were not around then.
I question whether they are around now.
Please tell rev the reason why Jews do not understnd the O/T. He implies they didn’t have the N/T which errr supports my argument.
We have it so WHAT is a prophet going to tell us that isn’t in there?
Halius,
most versions using formal equivalence use servant for Phoebe not deacon.
Only Jesus could appoint Apostles so unless Greg believes in apostolic succession he is on a wild goose chase.
Single people can do anything available apart from Bishop and Deacon stuff.
Haggard should never be allowed into a pulpit again as he can never be a minister again but he should always be made welcome at a church.
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:00 pm
No Janet, I’m not American. I’m Australian and understand sledging between friends, however the comments on here appear to be genuine animosity. Just for interest, what does “Bring back EP at LP” mean?
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:04 pm
“the comments on here appear to be genuine animosity..”
Absolutely.
Due to circumstances beyond our control…Homer is a complete dickhead.
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:33 pm
simmo - That’s what rev was referring to when he said he would go Lance on me.
Okay Simmo - now as to answering the question. The question is, what does your Bible say about prophecy? I know people who have been hurt in church, so would that be a good argument for shutting them all down. Pastors have let peope down, so should all pastors be banned ( YOU STAY OUT OF THIS LANCE =
) Since the answers to these is probably no, why do you think it is a good argument that prophecy does not exist because some people have been misled by it.
What does the BIBLE say about it?
December 2nd, 2006 at 6:20 pm
You must take things in context, something homer tells us all the time but rarely does. Jesus’ told us that we fall short in our attitudes, and you are right about the verse, thou fool ect. But then Jesus turns around and calls the pharisees sons of the devil, white washed tombs, and the murderers of the prophets. So what is the issue? In my opinion it centers around is Homer a scribe or a pharisee? And if he is, then my rebuke of him is fair game.
Now lets look at what a pharisee was:
They were strong adhearants of a literal interpretation of the Torah
They were righteous, and kept the rituals perfectly
They were faithful in giving
They upheld the standard doctrine of the day
They believed that the righteous were worthy of Gods blessing and that sinners were worthy of Gods judgement
They were proud arrogant and thankful that they were not like the sinners.
Hmmmmmmm sounds like Homer to me.
rev
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Oh and I am kinda in a weird middle ground. American culture has definately shaped my personality in many ways, not just my accent, but my tendency to self promote and to be a bit loud and over the top. But I find my humour and my cynicism much more aussie. I love cricket obsessively. And I really enjoy much of life in Melbourne more so than anything I have experienced in the states. I feel like a man in between cultures, and countries. But I do love oz.
rev