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 2nd, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Thank you for answering my question Homer: “Single people can do anything available apart from Bishop and Deacon stuff.”
What exactly is “bishop and deacon stuff”? How do these roles differ from… say… teachers, pastors, evangelists, administrators, etc.?
Simmo… 1.35 am? Bit of a night owl aren’t you? Yes, I wasn’t trying to imply it was simple good natured banter… just my experience of some Americans is that they are appalled by interactions that would be pretty normal here. And I’ve said my piece a few time about crossing that line so I won’t go on further here.
Rev… you’re funny enough to be an honory Aussie.
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:41 am
Janet, it would eliminate all the pastoring and administrative work as far as I can see.
let us look at what rev says’
‘Now lets look at what a pharisee was:
They were strong adherents 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.
Rev is completely wrong in all things quoted except a literal interpretation not bad for a person who boasted of his theological education.
look at the first half of John.
What does Jesus criticise them?
They were righteous, and kept the rituals perfectly? no not really. They were works inspired people.
They were faithful in giving. They gave in front of people . would not think that is particularly faithful in giving.
They upheld the standard doctrine of the day, Oops Jesus actually criticises then for being the OPPOSITE. Rather for example telling people that they must assist their parents they told people to give money to the temple to AVOID their responsibilities ie they got people to DISOBEY the law whilst those very people thought they were upholding it.
They believed that the righteous were worthy of Gods blessing and that sinners were worthy of Gods judgement. Technically correct but they didn’t understnd who were the righteous or who were the sinners.
They were proud arrogant and thankful that they were not like the sinners.
proud and arrogant people do not need Jesus!
Congratulations Rev your version is right up there with poverty Gospel of yours and you still do not understnd what a pharisee is. No wonder you are a angry man.
Big Kev you never answered why you thought Paul needed to be a bishop to write his letters. Did you get this by prophecy?
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:55 pm
“Janet, it would eliminate all the pastoring and administrative work as far as I can see.” You mean being a bishop and elder I presume… they do all the pastoring and adminstration?
So what roles can single people do?
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:15 pm
No the bishops do the pastoring and deacons the administration plus a wee bit of pastoring.
These are the only roles that have requirements so anyone can do anything else.
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Homer you said “Big Kev you never answered why you thought Paul needed to be a bishop to write his letters. Did you get this by prophecy?”
Can you translate for me? How could I get something by prophecy that I never answered?
“
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Speaking of not answering thigs - you didn’t answer WHERE you BIBLE says that prophets would cease to exsist. Come on Billy Bible beater - don’t give me another lame question, trying to avoid the issue- The answer is
A. It says that prophets would cease to exist here ____________.
B. it doesn’t say it, i was mistaken to think it did.
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Lance, I am going to need your help here. How did you get Homer to answer your questions?
December 3rd, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Big Kev,
if the apostles don’t exist then not all roles that Paul stated could exist.
I see no prophets around today and I see no reason for why they should.
We have all we need with the bible. O/T and N/T.
When Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians they didn’t even have the gospels so I can see why prophets could be needed.
I have answered this previously but I am still waiting anxiously to hear why Paul needed to be a bishop to write.
December 3rd, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Anyone can do anything else… like… what?
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:04 pm
what ever that church wants to do.
god only puts requirements on Bishops and deacons. Paul notes some roles but there would be plenty of others.
Different churches have different needs.
The great thing about N/T churches was how decentralised they were.
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:14 pm
What verse in the bible tells us that Apostles and prophets no longer exist Homer, it is an easy question.
rev
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Oh and Homer, you interpret Pharisees in a very interesting way, one that absolves you of your guilt. Hmmm sounds good to me, kinda like what you accuse Lance of doing. You and lance are a lot a like…
well actually not.
rev
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Congratulations rev,
you make a completely inaccurate statement again on Pharisees for which you are nailed on and you do what?
It would help to read the bible before making statements!
Rev I have already answered that questions on Apostles and Prophets but hey why don’t you tell us where an Apostle is now.
We can all go on a pilgrimage.
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Anything… like what? Do you have some examples of what single people could do?
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:51 pm
HOMER - If we have .as you say, ALL we need with the BIBLE -then you should have NO TROUBLE finding the answer as to where the BIBLE says that prophets would cease to exist.
I see no prophets around today and I see no reason for why they should.
That is YOUR OBSERVATION/OPINION I don’t need that - I need a BIBLE Verse or passage, or if you could just give a small example of a scriptural basis.
If ALL you need it the BIBLE - Why are YOURELYING on your own opinion.
LANCE- I know we have had our differences, but I could really use your help here. My appologies for all the Liegh Cartrigth stuff - it will never happen again.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Homer,
Your “calling me” on my statement is ofcourse your interpretation. The fact is I can defend my statements biblically, very easily, but you still won’t accept them because you are both never wrong, and are justifying yourself.
But I will just point out that your wonderful critique of my statement about the proud nature of the pharisees was countered with: Proud people don’t need Jesus which doesn’t even come close to making any sense at all.
And again, please show me the bible verse that says apostles and prophets no longer exist?
Oh and another little question for you: If in both the old and the new testement, prophets often came to call the church, or the nation of Israel to repentance for not keeping the covenant that they already had, then why couldn’t a prophet today do the same without any new revelation? Why wouldn’t a prophet today call the church repent of its unbiblical world view?
Oh and once more, will you just go on record as saying that both Jesus and Paul were unfit to be pastors and or bishops?
rev
December 4th, 2006 at 9:13 am
Big Kev,
I am not having a go at you. You still haven’t told me why Paul needed to be a bishop to write his letters.
Only Jesus could appoint apostles. He is no longer appointing Apostles. You can’t point any out. They aren’t around. Where are they now?
Where are the prophets?
We have one example I can think of in the N/T where the saints are told of an impending famine. Nowhere are we told of what they do apart from edifying the saints. I take it from that They are told what they do not know but what we do know through the N/T.
The all you need information in the bible statement is the significance of the cross and resurrection which we get from all the N/T which I repeat when Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians they did not have.
Rev,
Try rereading John chapter 8 then go to 9:4-41 17: perhaps Matt 15:12-14, 16:1-4, 12 chapter 23 Mark 7:5-13 Luke 11:37 … 17:15.
All show your view of the pharisees is wrong.
Rev this might be hard for you to understand but Jesus is head of the church. Paul is an apostle.
Proud people do not need Jesus and don’t recognise the cross. Perhaps that doesn’t make sense to you but any review of the words in the bible will bear that out.
In the O/T it refers to people who reject God!
Rev, we have the bible to point that people need to repent. A prophet would be surplus to requirements which is exactly the point I was making previously. Thanks for the support
December 4th, 2006 at 10:17 am
‘Only Jesus could appoint apostles.’
Like Matthias in the book of Acts.
As for the rest of your points Homer, remember that the ‘Bible’ in it’s current format was not canonised until 325 under Constantine. 325! If the Bible was God’s primary goal for interaction and teaching of doctrine, why did it take so darn long to get composed! Surely he wouldn’t trust the church with prophetic instruction and apostolic leadership for the first few CENTURIES of the New Testament church, if the Bible was His ultimate goal!
I would argue that the church had a greater vitality udring the apostolic era. The canonizing of Scripture was perhaps quite necessary, but a step towards the depersonalisation of Christianity into dogmatic creeds, and away from a heart religion, which I believe was God’s (and thus Jesus’) original intent.
December 4th, 2006 at 10:30 am
The Apostles drew lots believing God would determine the choice.
It has biblical history on its side however we never again hear of BigM but we do hear of Paul!
Actually a decade or so after Paul’s letters most of the Churches had all of the books we have now.
Once you have the Gospels and the other letters a prophet can only provide support to what is in there.
Rev asked what if a prophet came along and started called on the church to turn from its unbiblical ways.
How would one know that person is a prophet? By comparing what they said with what is in the bible!!! ie they would be repeating biblical doctrine
If any ‘church’ wants to disregard what is in the bible why would they pay attention to a prophet?
December 4th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Where does it say in the Scripture that what prophets say must be weighed against the Scripture? I don’t find that anywhere. I do however find that what NT prophets say should be weighed against something else. What do you suppose that is?
December 4th, 2006 at 10:55 am
‘The Apostles drew lots believing God would determine the choice.
It has biblical history on its side however we never again hear of BigM but we do hear of Paul!’
But doesn’t it prove that your assertion that only Jesus appointed apostles is erroneous?
‘Actually a decade or so after Paul’s letters most of the Churches had all of the books we have now.’
I doubt that. Hebrews and Jude particularly were not so widespread in their acceptance and it took canonization for many churches to accept them. My point is, we can’t have the Scripture, as useful as it is, on a such a high pedestal that we negate all need for God to speka to us today through other means. Sola Scriptura has not been the worldview for the vast majority of Christians throughout history, and is even not so widespread amongst Protestants.
December 4th, 2006 at 11:51 am
emblazened,
how in heaven’s name do you determine between false prophets and genuine ones? Surely one can only do it by comparing what they say to the scriptures.
There is a bit in Ezekiel on false prophets, different circumstances but quite enlightening.
Nor I am arguing that prophets were not in the Early Church however so the date is immaterial however at some stage there were no apostles nor were there prophets . Do not take cannonisation is your set date most of the churches had all of the N/T well before that.
Who did the Apostles believe Jesus was or you or I for that matter?
Far from erroneous it would seem.
December 4th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
‘how in heaven’s name do you determine between false prophets and genuine ones?’
It says how explicitly on at least four occassions in the New Testament. I am waiting for your depth of Scritpure knowledge to shine through…failing that, I will tell you shortly.
‘Surely one can only do it by comparing what they say to the scriptures.’
This is an assumption based on your worldview, and is not contained in the Scripture.
‘Do not take cannonisation is your set date most of the churches had all of the N/T well before that.’
I would say many churches had most of the N/T well before that, but I refute most churches had ALL of the NT. Are you familiar with the disputes surrounding the New Testament? The present canon came through much dispute.
‘Who did the Apostles believe Jesus was or you or I for that matter?’
Eh? Sorry, I don’t see how that relates.
‘Far from erroneous it would seem.’
I apologise, I don’t understand what you mean. I mentioned erroneous because you said emphatically ‘Only Jesus can appoint apostles’. You didn’t say ‘usually apostles are appointed by Jesus’ but ‘Only Jesus can appoint apostles’ which means there are no excpetions. i demonstrated where tehre was an exception, thereby showing that your statement was false. Now I’m quite happy for you to say ‘I know that’s what I said but it’s not quite what I meant’. That’s fine. No one is perfect in their expression. But as your statement was made, it was erroneous, I demonstrated it to be so.
December 4th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Sure there is nothing said by the prophets that would be unscriptural, but that does not mean they are not needed. And perhaps you should read a bit about Tony Campolo, a man who seriously rebuked the Baptist church in America and in so doing caused them to become the number one missions sending church in America. That is the role of the prophet, not to write new scriptures or to fortune tell, but rather to call the church to its purity, and purpose.
According to your view we would no longer need teachers either, because everything that is needed to be learned is already in the bible, people should just learn it themselves. If they don’t learn it from the bible why would they listen to a man?
An apostle is a sent one, the world is full of apostles. You are misunderstanding the role of apostle but ofcourse you will not even think about the possiblility that you might be wrong because you are never wrong. Nor prideful apparently. I suspect you are very humble too Homer? I am sure you tell everyone that is your greatest attribute.
rev
December 4th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Home Boy - Then what good is YOUR bible. So far, you have not given 1 (one) {uno} reference to one (uno) [1} Bible verse. If the BIBLE is all you need why on earth can you not give a scripture. I am not havein g a go at you either. But your answer makes the BIBLE look incomplete, becasue you say this book has ALL the answers and you cannot so much as give an inkling of your scriptural basis for your mere HUMAN opinions.
Please, read this question and think about what I am asking - where is the BIBLE verse at that backs your opinons???? - if all you need is the Bible, then you should have no problem with the passage.
As to paul being a Bishop, I was reffering to your opinion that a person had to be a father and husband to be a bishop. Paul could not qualify under your defuinition.. Therefore, when a Qualified BISHOP quotes PAUL, he is teaching Pauls teachings which would be inferior to his own, at best. Therefore the BISHOP would be misleading his people by not teaching his own releation (since he is qualified).
December 4th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Big Kev Paul is an apostle chosen by Jesus. He ranks them number 1.
He wrote the thing. how could he be inferior to as bishop of whom he doesn’t mention in Corthinians.
Have a read of the New Bible Dictionary or the Evangelical dictionary of Theology and see where the Reformed view is.
Kev,
If you are right and all the reformed set are wrong you should be able to point out some Apostles now. You can’t.
Why did Jesus appoint such Apostles ?
How come no effort is made to replace dead Apostles starting with James.
According to you it should have been done.
The Bible is complete because no prophet can can add anything to it.
the Church needed Apostles ,first rank, who have DIRECT experience of the risen Lord, and then Prophets, second rank, who get their message direct from God. Teachers come next. Note NO bishops or deacons to be found.
We have the scriptures which are the direct words of God and unbreakable.
The Early church did not have them. Once they get them what use is a prophet.
Why weren’t dead Apostles replaced as happened with Judas.
Rev,
do not confuse the issue. I am talking about the Twelve. Paul says he is different to those by selected by Jesus.
What does it say in 2 Timothy ,
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, and in training for righteousness.
Like your pharisee meanderings you haven’t read your bible properly.
emblazoned,
The early church had ALL the books we had from a good time. The Canon came from reducing the number of letters not adding to them.
Sorry emblazoned I should have been more more specific I was talking about the Twelve and then Paul. Paul did not count himself among the twelve.
True prophets must be consistent with the bible which makes them redundant. What will they add that is not in the bible already.
Of course if they did so then ipsofacto you have no way of verifying what they have said is true.
Anyway I would have thought Hebrews 1:1-2 precludes any new divine truth.
December 4th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Homer,
‘The early church had ALL the books we had from a good time.’
Have you researched this or just read a commentary? Yes they had all our books and more, but understand the church was not one unified creature. There were deep disputes about what was considered canon, and a book accepted in one place was not necessarily accepted elsewhere. Wikipedia maybe questionable but it’s a good primer; have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_canon
Note that even fairly orthodox believers had ‘lingering disputes over Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation’.
‘True prophets must be consistent with the bible which makes them redundant.’
You keep saying this. I heard you the first time. What I am asking for is for you to show me in the New Testament where it says prophets should be weighed up according to what the Bible says. I don’t think you’ll find it there, but you will find numerous places that tell you what prophets should be weighed up against. It just might challenge your understanding of the Scriptures and the way God wokrs, but it’s THERE WITHIN the Bible that you are advocating strongly. (Btw I am not against the Bible, but I do reject sola scritpura )
December 4th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
An exert from Bob deWaay
http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue95.htm
Paul warned, “Do not despise prophetic utterances.” What constitutes despising prophecy? Despising prophecy is the refusal to allow the Lord’s flock to bring the authority of Scripture to bear on one another and church leaders. This happens, for example, when a church member hears false teaching coming from the pulpit, does Biblical research to bring out valid implications, goes to the pastor and proves that the pastor has promoted what is false and the pastor refuses to defend his own teaching or listen to the evidence of the church member. The pastor has despised the prophecy of the member and claimed the right to give false prophecy from the pulpit and then furthered the sin by refusing to allow his own prophecy to be judged.
This is precisely what Luther claimed the Roman Catholic Church was doing in his day. Church authorities alone claimed the right to prophesy, and when doing so falsely, claimed immunity from being judged. This process is being repeated in many versions of evangelicalism today.
We need to return prophecy to the members of the church. Every member of the congregation, whether in a position of leadership or not, has access to the authoritative Scriptures and may bring forth valid implications and applications from them. Together, as we prophesy, we benefit from edification, exhortation, and comfort. The lost are convicted of their sins while the saved grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord.
December 4th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Homer - it is obvious - you 1. do not know your scriptures well enough to point out where the bible says prophets would cease or 2. you have painted yourself in a corner by espousing doctrines you have no scriptural basis for and now you are redundantly repeating diatribe.
Logic is phine Homer, Just say it this way. Your belief that Apostles and Prophets do not exist is based upon your own conclusions - outside of scripture - and are based in logic -NOT SCRIPTURE.
Which is phine by me, just quit saying your position is scriptural when it is clearly not. Am I correct in this? you position is from Logic NOT scripture.
December 4th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Big Kev,
I have NEVER repeat NEVER said the bible said that.
I said Only Jesus appointed the twelve plus Paul and no-one has replaced them and you sure haven’t shown any replacements nor has anybody else.
I also asked what could any prophet bring to the church that the Bible doesn’t and you could not give any extra information that is needed.
Veritas,
You are confirming what I said that we have enough in the bible although I have never heard of Luther being said to be a prophet.
Yes emblazen I am aware of how the canon was formed but those letters were in most of the church.