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 6th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
No, I disagree Homer.
Paul in 1 Corinthians is speaking of our ability to dedicate ourselves in an undivided way, these thoughts (not rules) apply to everyone. A bishop must please his partner too and in some sense is less capable to spend his energy with the Lord if he is married. So too a deacon. He’s not speaking of everyone except bishops and deacons. He also says if you’re married stay married, if single, stay single, he doesn’t say, “unless you want to be a bishop in which case disregard everything I’ve said both in principle and substance.”
He goes so far as to say “if your weak, marry.”
I have nothing against marriage or the single state, it’s simply a biblical statement and a valid and rational idea in my opinion and sheds light on 1Tim 3 rather than being invalidated by 1Tim3.
Your contention is that overseers need family so others can assess their character and I disagree, Paul’s Character was thoroughly assessable though he was unmarried.
You’ve stated more than once that in your opinion 1Tim 3 only applies to bishops and deacons and the list of preferable attributes from that passage is not confined solely to “being married with good children” so I assume that the entire list of character traits, you believe, are not applicable to anyone but bishops and deacons therefore evangelists are free from those other points made to Timothy, being exclusively for those two appointments.
I think I’ve made these points over and over and I believe our differences on this are intractable.
December 6th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
“Janet,
think about which jobs are for bishops or for deacons and which aren’t.”
Homer, I honestly am interested in your opinion on this… I already know my own views.
And I’m actually not a mind reader.
I don’t know if it’s just a Melbourne thing, but evangelicals here in the main simply don’t hold some of the views you are articulating, and I genuinely want to understand them.
So can I ask again what you think Bishops and Deacons uniquely do? (My version of the bible lists the qualities of the people Timothy and Titus were to appoint, but doesn’t give much of a job description)
And whether you think “non bishops and elders” can:
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?
Lead the pastoral care group?
It’s not a trick question. I’d like your opinion.
December 6th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
To be bluntly honest, this whole discussion about apotles, bishops/elders, and deacons seems to be rather pointless. It seems that Homer has his view based on a literal translation of the bible that a bishop/elder must be married with children, and just about everyone else disagrees. Trying to argue the finer points and exact definitions seems pointless.
Homer can belong to his church where leadership belongs only to the married man with a submissive wife and well behaved children, and everyone else can belong to their expression of church with its leadership structure.
At the end of the day we are arguing over how we apply the Bible to our everyday life and church leadership. Homer has a much more literal view than most others on this site. I think this is the real issue - how one views the Bible…..
December 6th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
That’s a good call Wayne… it really is about the way we interpret the bible.
The bottom line for me is that just because there an instruction in the letters to do a particular thing (appoint married men with children as elders in Ephesus and Crete some time in the 1st C) does not to me mean that this becomes a binding legalism upon all of the church for all ages… especially not when we have so much evidence of other kinds of leaders in the early church from other letters and from Acts… including singles and even women (gasp!)
So it’s not that I don’t read the bible and don’t believe the bible… it’s that I try to take really seriously the questions about who wrote a passage, to whom, when, where, and why, before I would dare suggest something becomes a rigid legalism for all time. Especially when that legalism is contrary to other biblical evidence, (singles in leadership) and especially when legalism in general is against the fundamental spirit of the gospel… for freedom Christ has set us free… in Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, slave nor free… and may I add… childless or with children!
However, because I’m a sticky beak I really want to understand what Sydney Anglicans think and why they do so… or why Homer thinks what he does and why. So I hope he indulges my curiousity with a straight-ish answer.
Tony Campolo has written a great book with a front cover that reads: “We have met the enemy, and they were Partly Right”. I like to stretch my mind and look for the grain of truth in people who think differently to me. I think it tempers my views, actually.
December 6th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Halieus,
you are correct we will not agree. Your exegesis on 1 corthinian7 is somewhat suspect and to be quite honest irrelevant to Bishops and deacons.
A person who marries is worshipping God in the way he treats his wife and children.
you have provided no explanation of why Paul contradicts himself either. indeeds no-one has who disagrees. why does he make such an explicit analogy?
Paul was an Apostle, top of the list. He never states he is a bishop indeed I would have thought Romans 15:20 means he isn’t at all.
you can’t be an itinerate bishop it is a contradiction in terms.
Janet:
Teach the whole church? No
Lead worship? unsure of what this means
Lead communion? No problems
Lead a small group? if you mean bible study no
Run the Sunday School? yes
Run the youth group? yes
Be the church treasurer? no surely that is for a deacon
Lead a management group? unsure what this means
Baptise someone? no problem
Lead the pastoral care group? unsure of what this as well
to be honest Janet I find Sydney anglicans quite liberal
December 6th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
someone, I forget whom, suggested because there are no requirements for being an evangelist that they could be a drunkard or even hated by their children.
now I would suggest people read what is said about drunkards indeed just keep it to the Pauline epistles and it is rather easy to see how silly that statement is. Drunkards and christianity are incompatible
We do not know why the man is hated by his children so it is impossible to comment.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
Janet I wouldn’t form a view of Sydney Angliocans based upon the rantings of the lunatic I lovingly refer to as our resident Homersexual (He really is having it on with himself…he has to be…) and Homer is quite right - compared to him and his views Sydney Anglicans are liberals -although what that makes someone like me I’m not sure - Pagan I would imagine!
Homer attends a particular Anglican church which is very narcisistic - it considers itself to be te be all and end all of theology to the extent that they have planted outposts of themselves up on te Central Coast…becuase none of the Anglicans up here were doing a good enough job of teaching the bible… …they think they konw everything and ahve it al together - and yet Homer won;t have communion with them - he treats his church family just like he treats us - with utter contempt and patronisation. I konw several Sydney Anglicans, and although we would disagree on matters of ordination of women as a whole they’re a pretty good bunch of people.
Homer is a lunatic - that’s all there is to it - and I didn’t need a DSMV to diagnose that!
December 6th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Janet, partly right is my favorite campolo book, that book really changed my life, and my point of view. Its a great read.
rev
December 6th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
so why is Janet, party right your favourite book rev?
December 6th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
you really are stupid aren’t you?
rev
December 6th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Homer writes “to be honest Janet I find Sydney anglicans quite liberal”
I am not sure you should be so honest in the future Homer - It is too scary!
December 6th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
“to be honest Janet I find Sydney anglicans quite liberal”
I suppose if you were a Taliban leader…..you would.
December 7th, 2006 at 12:25 am
Homer said:
“A person who marries is worshipping God in the way he treats his wife and children.”
I agree with the sentiment but this statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the text of 1 Corinthians 7. The text doesn’t mention worship or imply it. Explain your theory, here are some of the passages:
“…it is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
1 Corinthians 7:1
“…7 Yet I wish that all men were like me. However each man has his own gift from God, one of this kind, and another of that kind. But I say to the unmarried and to widows, it is good for them if they remain even as I am.”
1 Corinthians 7:7-8
“…9 But if they don’t have self-control, let them marry….”
1 Corinthians 7:9
“…27 Are you bound to a wife? Don’t seek to be freed. Are you free from a wife? Don’t seek a wife.”
1 Corinthians 7:27
“…He who is unmarried is concerned for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord;
but he who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife.”
1 Corinthians 7:32-33
“…35 This I say for your own profit; not that I may ensnare you, but for that which is appropriate, and that you may attend to the Lord without distraction…”
1 Corinthians 7:35
Homer said:
“you have provided no explanation of why Paul contradicts himself either.”
I think this statement reveals you are treating me with contempt. If your memory is truly faulty then I apologise but I didn’t give brief or ambiguous explanations for this and covered my thoughts several times, with quotes from various sources in lengthy posts. I can only assume you mean to be obstinate.
Just in case, Paul doesn’t contradict himself, the answer to your confusion is available in at least a dozen of the best commentaries and as I said, explanations that I and others have already deposited on previous posts. Disagree? Fine, but I won’t continue to rehash the same information again and again. Maybe you overlooked them in your haste, your memory is failing or maybe your not sincere and just delight in being difficult.
Homer said:
“that they could be a drunkard or even hated by their children.”
It was an attempt at irony that I then went on to have to explain to you in a later post. I didn’t say drunkard, there is a difference between a drunkard and heavy drinker however I reject utterly your assertion that alcoholics are “incompatible” with Christianity. It is the sick who need the physician and grace and more grace. Yet another side issue.
It was worth the time to read you concede that a single gay man can be a very good evangelist, lead communion, be a Sunday school teacher, a youth group leader and baptise people. I’m sure it won’t win you any friends at your church but none the less you should spread the word amongst your brethren quickly before you forget that you’ve acknowledged these things. Hopefully you won’t be excommunicated, you know how deranged people can get over suggesting homosexuals can do anything in church other than hide or endlessly apologise for who they are. Your current view although far from generous is preferable to the anti-gay rhetoric you were regurgitating with heartless regularity over the time I’ve been reading here, but I have a suspicion that you’ll seek to retract them.
However you’ve made more concessions than I’d imagined you would on the vital rather than the irrelevant.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:43 am
Lance, I am afraid I owe you a sincere apology. I have been thinking back to when I first began blogging on this site, nd I am sure I said some things that were offensive to you. Not that I was trying (at the first) to offend you, but speaking in conservative Americanism. (which is in no way connected to compassionate Christianity)
I offer to you a sincere apology for my insensitivety to you. I still may differ on your views but in the future will do my best to be sensitive to my comments. This includes my intentional flings about Leigh Cartwiright, and other intentional acts of insensitivity.
My best wishes to you.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:37 am
Big Kev,
you were advised of that at the time.
Halieus,
Janet was talking about single, no mention of being homosexuals.
An alcoholic who is drinking is not compatible with evangelism.
Yes the man or woman needs fellowship but evangelism is out of the question.
if you think Paul is talking about all parts of marriage then you need to read it again in particular the very first verse.
He is not saying this is the only reason for marriage, he he dealing with a specific situation. He is not expounding his view of the married state compare Ephesians 5:28ff.
I tend to agree with Calvin ,
the question is not as to the reasons for which marriage has been institutes but as to the persons for whom it is necessary.
Again it is irrelevant to the requirements of a bishop hence my aside on a marriage that a person who is married worships God in his behaviour toward her and his children which makes your criticism redundant!
indeed you have not really thought about verse 33 a lot.
The married man has responsibilities towards his wife and children.
They need food and shelter and cannot pack up and leave.
There must also be order in the household ie management of it!
A bishop is not an itinerant ministry. He is part of the church. He needs to be there all the time.
Not so with an evangelist however!
Think about why the ploughman is as spiritual as the priest.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:35 am
“Janet was talking about single, no mention of being homosexuals.”
I had a feeling you’d forget:
Homer said: 351
“sorry Janet but I have ALWAYS said the sin involved an action.”
single = no action.
no action = celibate.
Gays are not inherently immoral or more susceptible to temptation than anyone else.
Homer said: 403
“no other ‘office’ has any criteria. single people i would have thought would be very good at planting churches given no family responsibilities for example.”
Hence you’ve acknowledged single gay men can be very good church planters, your term for evangelist, and can do anything else in your church that you allow single people to do.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to tell others in your church of this important truth;-)
December 7th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
halieus,
you might have missed the point but most evangelicals do say the action is the sinful action.
a homosexual by definition must be single because they cannot be married.
I can then assume by gay you are merely talking about a person who is not indulging in sex.
You are then correct they could indeed be an evangelist.
By the way your interpretation on 1 Cor7 implies only single people could hold office.
Re-read both chapter 7 and then 1 Timothy 3 and then think of whether Paul is referring to similar people.
On the other hand verse 32 in saying a married man should serve the Lord in a manner free from concern in totally consistent as opposed to your view which is not.
December 7th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
So an unapologetic and openly gay man who is single (doesn’t have a partner) can be an evangelist, lead communion, be a Sunday school teacher, a youth group leader and baptise people in your church without any protest from their brothers. Is that official church policy?
But if they have a partner they can’t even come to church and sit and listen to the Gospel?
Many evangelicals say one thing and behave another on this issue and persecute vehemently.
Many think gays are different from others and treat them with suspicion and hostility if they dare disclose their sexual orientation/disposition.
Many evangelicals shudder at the thought of having an openly gay man lead youth group.
Many don’t even believe that homosexual orientation is not a choice. They believe gays are immoral by virtue of their sexual attraction.
I’ve heard it with my own ears and seen it with my own eyes, even in so-called liberal congregations and I dare suggest it’s the norm and not the exception.
Many press gays to become hetrosexual and devise brain washing programs to suit and persuade them to marry so they can be fully accepted brothers and sisters in Christ when all they want is acceptance, compassion and understanding. Many, many brothers suffer this in churches across the spectrum.
Many believe it’s a sickness to be gay, demonic to be gay, unacceptable to be gay and many gays leave fellowship or take their own lives through the despair inflicted by their brothers.
December 7th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
Halieus ,
I would treat it no different to an adulterer.
A person who believes in the gospel can do most things.
A person who believes homosexuality is not a sin does not believe in the Gospel a bit like the man in 1cor5.
It does matter a hoot what a single person call them self. We are all tempted but we acknowledge that weakness.
A single person who believes they can indulge in sex does not believe in the gospel.
I hope that answers the issue.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Thanks for answering my question Homer.
It seems to me that halieus has summarised your argument well Homer… which I would describe like this:
A person who feels they are gay (because they have only ever been attracted to people of the same sex and never to the opposite sex) but who has made a decision to be celibate in good conscience in obedience to Christ, should be eligible to be an evangelist, lead communion, be a Sunday school teacher, a youth group leader and baptise people… just like single people who identify themselves as heterosexual (because they have only ever bee attracted to people of the opposite sex) should be eligible to be an evangelist, lead communion, be a Sunday school teacher, a youth group leader and baptise people.
Is that what you think?
A simple yes or no would do.
December 7th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
A single person who believes they can indulge in sex does not believe in the gospel.
Now according to you a person is single if they are not married - I take it you mean have not had their committment to their partner consecrated/solemnised by a minister of the Christian church or some other duly appointed person?
Well given that definition I am single. I hasten to add that I find fault with and do not agree with your definition - but for the sake of this arguement, let’s say you’re correct. According to you, becuase I engage in sex with my partner (who, according to the definition of marriage I assume you hold to, I am not married to) I do not believe in the Gospel.
You are incorrect my fine feathered friend - I do believe in the Gospel and have encountered the risen Lord Jesus through the message of the gospel and have experienced freedom and redemption through the Gospel.
You may wish to revise your statement.
December 7th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
http://rosemswetman.blogspot.com/2006/11/open-letter-to-mark-driscoll_14.html
This is a great open letter by Rose Swetman to Driscoll regarding all of his comments abuot wome and s and leadership since the Ted Haggard episode. As one of her commenters noted (RobbyMac indeed it was!)
It’s a long letter but here it is:
December 8th, 2006 at 9:12 am
“a homosexual by definition must be single because they cannot be married.”
Oops..you just contradicted your own reasoning.. Homer.
You’re implying in that statement that a homosexual has an orientation that would prevent them being married to someone of the opposite sex.
Is that ‘weasel word’ ….’orientation’……a reality that is now back as part of your thinking?
If there’s no such thing as an ‘orientation’….then why is ‘a homosexual by definition must be single because they cannot be married’?
Is it because a homosexual does have an ‘orientation’ after all?
(waits for the stock proud and haughty Homer response ‘you obviously cannot read/cogitate on that’)
You can’t say there’s no such thing as ‘orientation’ to make one argument..and then acknowledge the existence of ‘orientation’ to make another argument.
December 8th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Lance, they are indulging in an action which is why I call them Homosexual.
Think about it!!!
Janet,
I have already answered this. YES.
All single people are tempted. The only problem is whether they fall for the temptation. I would assume in this case brothers ans sisters are confident this will not happen.
Greg,
your pharisaic try at attempting to portray your self as single is absurd.
you have a partner and believe you are single! That is something I thought only Lance might try to portray
December 8th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Hey Stumpy, do YOU think you’re single?
(you absurd pharisaical partnered lanceite!)
December 8th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Lance… Homer has said an unambiguous yes to the following:
A person who feels they are gay (because they have only ever been attracted to people of the same sex and never to the opposite sex) but who has made a decision to be celibate in good conscience in obedience to Christ, should be eligible to be an evangelist, lead communion, be a Sunday school teacher, a youth group leader and baptise people… just like single people who identify themselves as heterosexual (because they have only ever been attracted to people of the opposite sex) should be eligible to be an evangelist, lead communion, be a Sunday school teacher, a youth group leader and baptise people.
I think what Homer is trying to say is that he considers homosexuality a “weasel word” IF people say “I must engage in homosexual sex because that is my orientation”… he feels this is equivalent to saying: “I must commit adultery because I have a sexual orientation that makes me attracted to married people”.
I think the merits and weaknesses of that argument can wait for another day… I for one am pleased to hear a clear statement from Homer that homosexual orientation exists, and that it is not a block to some forms of Christian leadership.
December 8th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
I’m not saying I’m single…I was pointing out that by your standards I think you would say I was single.You also said that anyone who thinks they can have sex while single doesnt believe te gospel. You have at other times caled me a fornicator andso i assumed that you consider me single.
Now you say: you have a partner and believe you are single! there fore you bel;ieve that having a partner I am not single and yet you also say:
a homosexual by definition must be single because they cannot be married. You use double standards -I ahve a partner but am not single yet a gay person, a homsexual, if they have a partner is single becuase they can’t be maried? Have i got hat straigfht (pun intended!)
I do not belive I am single - asnd better a pharasaical attempt than a moronic home[r] run!
December 8th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Greg,
I said they must be single because they cannot be by definition be married.
neither males nor females engaging in homosexual activity can be ‘one body’ for a start only males and females.
Try and understand this homosexual activity is sinful period.
I think you should be very careful Greg I have not called you a fornicator indeed I haven’t called anyone here that name.
Janet,
you have mostly got that right except at no place did I give any credence to orientation.
December 8th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
” I do not belive I am single” - I didn’t think so.
You redneck!
“neither males nor females engaging in homosexual activity can be ‘one body’ ” - kinda looked like ‘one-body’ in the movie…
(I know what you mean… I’m just being funny cos it’s Friday and I’m annoyed at other stuff. Taking the mickey here helps me deal with other rubbish)
December 8th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
I must admit, I’ve been intrigued at the oft repeated comment that the ‘activity’ is sinful… Therefore, avoid the activity=avoid the sin.
Jesus noted that:
anger = murder
lust = adultery… just wondering why this sudden deviation towards the notion that it is only sinful when the activity has occured…
It’s not just the activity we need to surrender, we also need to surrender the whole attitude to God.
(I am of course referring to the attitude of legalism vs the activity of pontificating, as much as it refers to anything sexual that anyone would like to think about because it gets them off on a Friday arvo before beer o’clock)