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 5th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
“…15 For you didn’t receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God;”
Romans 8:15-16
An Orthodox Evangelical view of The Gifts:
“Orthodox Evangelicals vary in their views on spiritual gifts from denying their existence since the age of the apostles, to viewing the practice of one or more gifts as a prerequisite for spiritual health and maturity. Many Orthodox Evangelicals believe strongly in the existence of spiritual gifts, and even practice them personally, while having grave reservations about specific practices associated with spiritual gifts in some specific contexts.”
http://forums.crosswalk.com/Range_of_Doctrines/m_1014/tm.htm
December 5th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Bec, there are only 3 members of the trinity - God the Father, the Son and the Holy Scriptures….
December 5th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
My reflection is that the nub of the debate is a confusion between title/position and function/calling. Looking at apostleship first, it seems to me both sides are saying something partly right.
Vine’s expository dictionary of New Testament words:
1 APOSTLOLOS is lit. one sent forth (apo, from, stello, to send) The word is used of the Lord Jesus to describe His relation to God, Heb 3:1; see John 17:3. The twelve disciples chosen by the Lord for special training were so called, Luke 6:13; 9:10. Paul, though he had seen the Lord Jesus, I Cor 9:1; 15:8, had not “companied with” the Twelve “all the time” of His earthly ministry, and hence was not eligilbe for a place among them, according to Peter’s description of the necessary qualifications, Acts 1:22 Paul was commissioned directly, by the Lord Himself, after His ascension, to carry the gospel to the Gentiles.
The word also has a wider reference. In Acts 14:4, 14 it is used of Barnabus as well as of Paul; in Rom. 16:7 or Andronicus and Junias. In II Cor. 8:23 tow unnamed brethren are called “apostles of the churches”, in Phil 2:25 Epaphroditus is refered to as “your apostle”. It is used in I Thess 2:6 of Paul, Silas and Timothy, to define their relation to Christ.
2 APOSTOLE, a sending, a mission, signifies an apostleship, Acts 1:25; Romans 1:5; I Cor 9:2; Gal 2:8
Note “false apostles” (Pseudapostloi) occurs in II Cor 11:13
So Homer is right about the unique position of the 12 apostles (and Paul) as witnesses to the resurrected Christ. But I think other respondents are right about the apostolic function/calling being wider than this… and Vine’s gives the references where this is used of other people who have also been “sent forth”.
I think if we think of apostleship as a function rather than a unique position it is quite reasonable to say that missionaries have an apostolic function as “sent out” ones… as are church planters in new mission fields.
I would argue that we should actually view overseers, deacons, prophets etc. in a functional sense rather than a positional sense… especially when we consider how primitive the church was in the time of Paul and how flat the hierachy of the church appeared to be if you look at instructions about church order (see Corinthians… it’s all about taking turns rather than the bishops taking charge!)
Anyway, that is an aside from my dogged pursuit of what the single and /or childless are allowed to do in the church in Homer’s view.
I’ve found they can do evangelism.
Can they teach the whole church?
Lead worship?
Lead communion?
Lead a small group?
Run the Sunday School?
Run the youth group?
Be the church treasurer?
Lead a management group?
Baptise someone?
etc.
December 5th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
One more comment… there’s some great posts here but I particularly liked your one about bible deism akevin. It did make me think of some people I’ve met in the past who’ve been so full of biblical zeal and so devoid of apparent love and life of the Spirit. Even the good can become idolatorous.
December 5th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Post 513: Spot on Janet!
December 5th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Emblazoned said: I was raised in that context and actually left it to go to Hillsong, because I believed God spoke to me and I wanted to develop my spirituality.
And bang there you go and play right into the hands of Homer - or you’ve proved thqt you wern’t listening propoerly, or you proved that God was having you on and you took him seriuously, or you proved that I look for things to poke fun at people with, or you proved all of the above
December 5th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
still no verse from the pharisee homer
December 5th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
If Paul believes that all scripture is enough to … then it is good enough for me.
December 5th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
the blcokquote was supposed to work the other way round!
December 6th, 2006 at 2:03 am
Enough religionizing with the Bible deist. Who was it that posted the youtube of Bono? I think it was janet, but whoever it was, Thank you. I have sent it around my mail list and have had the most favorable responses. As for me, it was an eye opener in many ways. Especially the part about justice. I can truly appriciate all that Bono had to say, and I liked his part about America’s increasing funding for AIDS medications and relief for Africa having tripled since 9/11. Thanks..
December 6th, 2006 at 9:14 am
“Some of the highest achievements of contemporary evangelicalism can be credited to our entrepreneurial energy. When evangelicals have seen a need, they have not simply wished for “somebody to do something about it.” Often, they have formed new, ad hoc organizations, recruited help, and set out to fix a problem, cure an ill, meet a need, or evangelize a neglected population.
This has resulted in the transformation of countless lives, and it has also provided leadership opportunities for many who would not otherwise have had them. The result has been flashes of brilliance and tremendous creativity.
This entrepreneurial spirit, however, has also has been the cause of organizational chaos, a characteristic of our movement. Even worse, it has repeatedly provided the occasion for abusive staff relations, sexual or fiscal immorality, and pride-fueled cults of personality.”
From http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/december/10.22.html
December 6th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Janet,
think about which jobs are for bishops or for deacons and which aren’t.
When I saw people were confusing the word apostle I then deliberately stated I was talking about the twelve plus Paul because in both cases in Corinthians ans Ephesians that is what Paul is talking about.
Hence people have to show Apostles appointed by Jesus which no-one apparently can.
If people want to refer to messengers then it is another ball game completely.
I see someone has claimed that they have a prophet.
Is it possible to ask what the revelations were from whomever they are?
Note to Greg you thoughts on what the early church had are badly wrong.
They had all we had plus a few more. Paul Barnett has shown that people were quite competent and enthusiastic writers in this period.
Yes the church did go into a bad period so what do you think eventuated?
Why did we need a reformation?
Similar to the finding of the law in Josiah’s time don’t you think?
According to your interpretation of the Ephesian passage your church is no church as you have no apostles or prophets but. Have you though on why there is no mention of bishops or deacons?
Rev,
I never claimed the bible said that as I repeatedly have stated but I do note neither you nor Big Kev can direct anyone here to a modern day Apostle. Ever wondered why at all?
December 6th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Neil Cole is a modern day Apostle, so is Brother Yun, So was Wesley. No wonder, I am fully able to produce a whole heap of them. As well as many prophets. And again you show your ignorance by suggesting that prophets only foretell the future. Prophets give the heart of God to the people, for edification, and encouragement and correction.
rev
December 6th, 2006 at 9:51 am
woould you say Luther also, rev?
December 6th, 2006 at 9:53 am
rev,
They are apostles yet they have direct experience of Jesus or Jesus’s teachings unless they err read the bible,
Or are you mischievously merely relating to a messenger which I most certainly wasn’t talking about
so modern day prophets do this by use of the bible by any chance?
Whereas N’T prophets got a direct revelation from God.
By the way one cannot be a pharisee and a bible deist and As I read my Evangelical ?Dictionary of Theology (Because I always confuse Deism and Theism) I see a bible deist is also a contradiction in terms.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:02 am
I think that Janet is right - we’re never going to agree Homer becuase you are talking about the positoin or appointment and we are talking about the function or discerned ministry
December 6th, 2006 at 10:37 am
I think Janet is right. if we said look at C. peter wagner for exapmple, you would say he is not an apostle becasue you see the position/title, He has no physical appointment by Christ as an apostle - tWhether we agree with the person, we see the function. Good point janet
December 6th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Greg,
them I am very disappointed because as soon as I realised some people had mixed up the apostle re one of the twelve with Apostle re messenger I immediately specified what I meant and I might add What Paul clearly talks about both in Corinthians and Ephesians.
In most evangelical books or commentaries on Apostles or prophets for that matter they make the point that both are no longer around us.
If you take rev’s example the person involved merely brings biblical principles to the topic. There is no direct revelation at all.
If I were Shakespeare I would say much ado about nothing.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Homer, I am interested why you think that Paul is “clearly” adopting your assumption when he talks about apostles and prophets in Corinthians and Ephesians.
Personal revelation is a bit like baptism with the holy spirit. If you are insistent that it is never going to happen, then you are unlikely to see/experience it when it does.
FWIW I think that there are heaps of modern day apostles and prophets, and that sometimes these people are spectacularly ungifted in the pastoral or teaching areas. Tony Campolo has been mentioned. Locally, for prophets I would point to Tim Costello as an example but there are plenty more.
December 6th, 2006 at 10:56 am
‘Hence people have to show Apostles appointed by Jesus which no-one apparently can.’
Homer, I showed you that this is not criteria!! Take Matthias! Take Barnabas! (Acts 14:4) Andronicus and Junias! (Romans 16:7)! NO WHERE IN THE SCRIPTURE DOES IT SAY AN APOSTLE MUST BE APPOINTED BY JESUS SO STOP SAYING THIS UNLESS YOU CAN PRODUCE A SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS THAT.
‘In most evangelical books or commentaries on Apostles or prophets for that matter they make the point that both are no longer around us.’
That’s because they are written mostly by evangelical scholars who lived with a modernist thought, who lived in a world where naturalism was the dominant philosophy. If they conceded that there were modern apostles, they would have to concede there were modern miracles. So they developed a TWISTED belief system that denied both.
December 6th, 2006 at 11:40 am
And guess what, Junias was a woman!
It might be interesting to note here that titles where never used in the NT church. They used terms that described their funtion ie: Paul, the apostle, not The Apostle Paul.
People love to give themselves titles, “Bishop Jones, Elder Smith, Deacon Soandso”, whereas in the NT we find:
“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ”
“Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ”
“Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ”
“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ”
“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ”
and so on. It always describes their function in the Church. Titles came a lot later and were retrospectively imposed on the NT characters.
Anyway, on the Ted Haggard thing, the cult of personality helps destroy the humility of people like Haggard as well as distorting Christianity and institutionalising falsehood, driving their temptations and desires underground so to speak. By the time they reach “the top” it must become impossible for them to admit any wrong or fault.
If he had been able to at least confide in some other ministers that he had a strong desire for sex with prostitutes it may have turned out differently. Instead these leaders end up believing they are great as the people see them as great and faultless.
I think he’ll be a better servant of Christ after all this blows over than he was as a servant of “the system” if he’s not once again placed on a pedestal by himself and the people who adore positions and power.
He’s been humbled, great if he could remain so.
It always irked me that people who call themselves pastors had no time to visit and care for the lowly members of their church but would get some underling to do the visiting and prayers and comforting. They feel too busy and important for real pastoring, the great man on the stage syndrome. I think it would help them a lot to get out among the people.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Halieus and emnblazoned
two definitions remember. Drawing of lots has biblical history on its side as GOD deciding the issue. Jesus is who?
Dan,
I was talking about Apostles.
It seems anyone talking about modern day prophets like the Rev example is merely backing up MY case. They are using the bible. They have no DIRECT statement from God.
I would think that comes under teaching and it certainly comes under 2 timothy 3:16-17
Finally to Haggard. It seems to me a bishop’s position is teaching plus. part of that is unquestionably what we term pastoring. If he was not doing that then he was not fulfilling his job.
However he he is ineligible for this role which again I would have thought both 1 Timothy3 and Titus 1 make pretty explicit.
emblazoned I do not know of any Evangelicals that deny miracles indeed it is the first I have ever heard of this.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Jesus is the son of God. He is the Christ. What’s your point?
December 6th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
‘emblazoned I do not know of any Evangelicals that deny miracles indeed it is the first I have ever heard of this.’
Denial of miracles, or at the very least, downplaying them to insignificance, are fairly standard positions from Dallas, Fuller and Moore grads.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Homer, you were talking about apostles. I don’t know why you think it is “clearly” indicated in Paul’s writing in Corinthians and Ephesians that he ascribed the same meaning to “apostle” (ie directly appointed by jesus) that you have done in this thread.
Secondly, if you believe in miracles, aren’t miracles a form of revelation outside of the bible? I mean, at the very least, God is revealing the way that he has chosen to intervene in the world at this point of time. I know many people whose witnessing of miracles would fall squarely into the category of extra-biblical revelation. Your thoughts?
December 6th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Dan , in both passages it seems pretty clear to me and most commentary writers I have read he is referring to the twelve not mere messengers.
Messengers we know these days as evangelists or missionaries etc.
sorry I wouldn’t thought a miracle is a direct revelation from God. A direct revelation is the spoken word.
Like when Paul asks the Cortinian church to use a prophet to ascertain whether he is writing scripture or not!
Denial is not at all the same as downplaying.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
“I think he’ll be a better servant of Christ after all this blows over”
According to you, he can be a successful respected evangelist to whom 1Tim doesn’t apply. He can even be a heavy drinker and brawler whose children hate him according to you. Are you saying servant of Christ means “deacon” now? or that deacon means servant of Christ and is generally applicable to all ministers?
The merry go round:
Being single is praised by the Apostle Paul as enabling more faithful service to the Lord. Why would Paul restrict unmarried men from church leadership positions when he believes, “…an unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs-how he can please the Lord”?
Was he talking to potential overseers as well amongst the congregation or does being a better servant of God not apply to overseers?
I don’t believe your interpretation of 1Tim 3 and it seems to me that’s pretty much where it ends. You and I both know that many calling themselves “Bishops” couldn’t oversee the making of their own lunch let alone the Church of Jesus Christ. They get where they are through nepotism and grovelling through the system.
I don’t *know* that Haggard didn’t pastor people, I assume that through my own experience of exalted leaders giving themselves airs.
“two definitions remember” No, I could find your two definitions in my bible.
Eastern Orthodoxy recognises the ministry of apostles and they make two distinctions also:
“When the young Church was getting underway, God poured out His Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and their followers, giving them spiritual gifts to build up the Church and serve each other. Among the specific gifts of the Spirit mentioned in the New Testament are: apostleship, prophecy, evangelism, pastoring, teaching, healing, helps, administrations, knowledge, wisdom, tongues, interpretation of tongues. These and other spiritual gifts ARE recognized in the Orthodox Church. The need for them varies with the times. The gifts of the Spirit are most in evidence in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church.
http://www.protomartyr.org/believe.html
St Stephen Antiochian Orthodox Church.
To me it wouldn’t matter what you call them.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Why is direct revelation limited to only the spoken word? Considering God is limitless in his ability t oreveal himself (and that is what revelation is) I would think that miracles definitely fall into the category of revelation of God. - But you are the most gifted scholar among uis and so I bow to your indubitable mental dexterity and prowess
December 6th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Homer, you havent addressed Barnabas, Andronicus and Junias. Saying Matthias was just a historical example is far from conclusive. So the apostles were just the original twelve, right? With the exception of Paul, who was a bonus. And Matthias, who replaced Judas. And Barnabas. And Andronicus. And Junias. Too many exceptions for a worthwhile rule - I think you should look for a better rule.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
emblazoned, with respect I have.
two definitions. one has direct experience of Jesus’s death ,ressurection and teachings, the other is a messenger.
They replaced Judas but did nothing when James died. If that form of Apostleship kept going why not?
Greg,
the Herbrews witnessed the miracle of the red sea but it was moses who informed them of the imprtance of it.
I hope you understand the difference.
Why would Paul restrict unmarried men from church leadership positions when he believes, “…an unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs-how he can please the Lord?
wewll here he isn’t exactly dealing with a bishop. the reasons are listed both in 1 timothy 3 and titus1.
Being a bishop isn’t the only way to please the Lord.
I am assuming you are not talking to me about your first paragraph as I haven’t asserted any of those things.
I will say one thing. All deacons are servants but not all servants are deacons