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 12th, 2006 at 9:13 am
the point which ALL have missed is that we see people in the church in Corinth who had previously indulged in homosexual practices but had overcome that and were now members of the church.
Thus we have a specialised situation and there wasn’t a need for any specialised ministry merely teaching of the word which people could accept or reject.
When David repented he didn’t put in a caveat of course I had an orientation to commit adultery because I found Bathsheba sexually attractive.
When we sin we did it openly and wantonly.
We can then either repent or reject God.
Janet, there is a theory that one is born a homosexual however the evidence is yet to be found for it.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:36 am
As stated earlier, it was common in ancient Greek for married men to have sex with one another… so we are NOT talking about those who have an exclusive attraction to members of the same sex.
There is strong evidence of a hormonal / genetic link for some homosexuals… as I have stated, this is not “proof” and does not appear to apply in all cases. Human sexuality is more complex than you suppose.
The entire context of my discussion with you Homer has been an assumption of celibacy… I understand you are not one of the more liberal interpreters of scripture. My point is that it is ESPECIALLY important for those who teach lifelong celibacy for those who are only experience same-sex attraction to show particular pastoral support.
So I repeat my earlier question…
Don’t you think life-long celibacy is a subject worthy of particular pastoral attention? (The Catholic church take this issue very seriously… Protestants virtually ignore the issue)
December 12th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Janet, the Corinth we are talking about was a ROMAN colony.
Get rid of the greek culture and law and insert Roman instead.
Paul Barnett has shown it was not common in Corinth for that to occur.
Homosexual activity did occur but not on any large scale.
Life long celibacy is just as troubling for heterosexuals Janet.
Most who come to the Lord would have already indulged in sexual activity.
I do not see any specific pastoral care in this case. People accept the situation and get on with life.
December 12th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Do you think heterosexuals dealing with life long celibacy would benefit from particular pastoral care? (as stated, the Catholic church thinks so)
December 12th, 2006 at 11:46 am
I can’t see why but I would leave the door open.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Well here’s one reason why, I think:
I’ll take the case of Paul’s advice to the Corinthians again concerning marriage:
“But, because of sexual immoralities, let each man have his own wife…”
1 Corinthians 7:2
“However each man has his own gift from God, one of this kind, and another of that kind.”
1 Corinthians 7:7
But if they don’t have self-control, let them marry
1 Corinthians 7:9
Paul clearly states that not everyone is suited to celibacy. Some are more capable than others at this particular aspect of self-control. He knows that although it might be preferable, for some it would lead to even more promiscuity than they’re obviously already involved in.
Paul however would never have envisaged a situation where a person who could not contain himself would be unable to find a partner. It just didn’t happen.
The assumption is that a person can (without any difficulty) marry. Let them marry, it’s that simple. He acknowledges that sexual immoralities exist among single people and that even married people will be tempted if they go without sex for an extended period (vs5) because he wasn’t fool enough to imagine that everyone had the self control he had. The Corinthians certainly showed that.
In other words he knew that being single WOULD lead to sex outside of marriage for some people. It seems to me he would have had a lot of compassion and understanding for the modern predicament. I think he understood that sex outside commitment happens, not that it’s right but that it does and will happen. It seems to me he understood this better than a lot of churches today who are faced with a more difficult situation in this respect than the church of his day.
As I’ve said before, I know several hetrosexual men who want to be married but are looking at perhaps never having a partner. They don’t have the “gift” as Paul puts it, for remaining unmarried but they’re trying desperately to remain celibate. It is a special situation that needs special attention and a lot of understanding if they fail. These people are also prone to depression and to leaving fellowship.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
What you’re asking Homer to do is think beyond himself about someone else who’s in a different situation to him, something he’s never done before in his life.
Good luck.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
‘Paul however would never have envisaged a situation where a person who could not contain himself would be unable to find a partner. It just didn’t happen. ‘
I agree and so the question is why does it happen today when obviously it shouldn’t?
December 12th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Amongst other reasons, arranged marriages were the norm then, as they continue to be in some non-Western cultures. In my understanding if you wanted to marry you’d ask your parents to organise it. and they would do all the tricky negotiating. I don’t think the women had much say in it… they were legally chattels.
Life on the other side of the sexual revolution is pretty complex.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
No, I don’t believe that’s the question Homer. That’s another subject. We have what we have here in Australia and most other western democracies. There are special problems that need special attention and special patience, care and understanding. It’s an issue for people right now and right here. Will you agree with that also?
December 12th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
I’ve been doing a bit of a cruise around on Science Direct and checking out abstracts (sick child at home who likes watching tele… clearly I have too much time on my hands). Great site if you want to catch up on current research in almost any discipline. I’ve been having a sticky beak about sexual orientation and hormones… there’s some interesting stuff around. I’d post some of the links but I don’t know how to do this in a short format… the site names are a mile long. Just confirms the whole issue is absurdly complex.
Anyway… I have a nature / nurture question for Homer. Were you read fairy tales as a kid? Sometimes I feel like you emerged from one of those homes where C.S. Lewis books were banned because they had a witch in them.
I’m not trying to be rude… you just seem much more at ease in quoting bible passages and their background in great detail… than you are when asked a question requiring imagination. Is that temperament, upbringing, or both?
December 12th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
I think you just post the links Janet and they magically become neat and tidy.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Here we go again.
“In a tearful videotaped message Sunday to his congregation, the senior pastor of a thriving evangelical megachurch in south metro Denver confessed to sexual relations with other men and announced he had voluntarily resigned his pulpit.
A month ago, the Rev. Paul Barnes of Grace Chapel in Douglas County preached to his 2,100-member congregation about integrity and grace in the aftermath of the Ted Haggard drugs-and-gay-sex scandal.
Now, the 54-year-old Barnes joins Haggard as a fallen evangelical minister who preached that homosexuality was a sin but grappled with a hidden life.
“I have struggled with homosexuality since I was a 5-year-old boy,” Barnes said in the 32- minute video, which church leaders permitted The Denver Post to view. “… I can’t tell you the number of nights I have cried myself to sleep, begging God to take this away.”
His wife, Char, cradled his hand. Barnes declined an interview request through the church.
Unlike Haggard, who had the ear of the White House, Barnes is not a household name. He is a self-described introvert who avoids politics, preferring to talk about a Gen-X service at the nondenominational church he started 28 years ago in his basement, church officials said.
Barnes and Grace Chapel stayed out of the debate over Amendment 43, a measure approved by Colorado voters last month defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
“I can’t think of a single sermon where he ever had a political agenda,” said Dave Palmer, an associate pastor.
Palmer said the church got an anonymous call last week from a person concerned for the welfare of Barnes and the church. The caller had overheard a conversation in which someone mentioned “blowing the whistle” on evangelical preachers engaged in homosexuality, including Barnes, Palmer said.
Palmer met with Barnes, who confessed. At an emergency meeting Thursday, a board of elders accepted Barnes’ resignation after he admitted “sexual infidelity,” violating the church’s code of conduct. Church leaders also must affirm annually that they are “living the moral and ethical teachings of Scripture in my public and private life.”
Asked for details of Barnes’ transgressions, Palmer called them “infrequent events in his life” that to his knowledge did not take place in recent months.
Sitting cross-legged in jeans and an open-collar shirt, Barnes spoke in his video about evolving feelings growing up in a firm moral family: from confused little boy to adolescent racked with self-loathing and guilt.
In their only talk about sex, Barnes said his father took him on a drive and talked about what he would do if a “fag” approached him.
Barnes thought, “‘Is that how you’d feel about me?’ It was like a knife in my heart, and it made me feel even more closed.”
When Barnes experienced a Christian conversion at 17, it gave him a glimmer of hope. But his homosexual feelings never went away, he said. He said he cannot accept that a person is “born that way,” so he looks to childhood influences.
Barnes said he asked God many times why he was called to ministry, to start Grace Chapel, carrying a “horrible burden.”
The soft-spoken Barnes is an unlikely big-church pastor.
After graduating from Dallas Theological Seminary, Barnes and his wife moved to Denver and began a Bible study. His church met in a school and a mortuary, bought property at Colorado Boulevard and Arapahoe Road, and now occupies a campus off County Line Road that used to be a car dealership.
Barnes described struggling with what he believes is the biblical teaching that homosexuality is an abomination. Over the years, he grew to accept that “this is my thorn in the flesh.”
Barnes expressed hope for a future where one can “be who you are” and be accepted and loved in the Christian community and also spoke about “separating some of the teachings from Scripture” from Jesus Christ.
Palmer said he wasn’t sure what Barnes meant, but Barnes told him that he believes God views homosexuality as a sin.
Barnes said he has been in counseling three times and never found anyone he could talk to.
His wife said on the video that she didn’t know about her husband’s struggles until he confided in her last week. The couple has two daughters in their 20s.
Char Barnes said she feels “like I’m living someone else’s life” but was grateful her husband revealed himself. The couple said they hope to stay in Denver. Near the tape’s end, Paul Barnes says, “This is what it is, it’s right, and it’s time.”
Church elder Russ Pilcher said the reaction at services Sunday was largely concern for the couple. “I thought, ‘Where did I fall short in making myself so unapproachable that he couldn’t come to me?”‘ Pilcher said.
Paul and Char Barnes will get counseling, but unlike Haggard, they will not go into seclusion or report to a board of reconcilers, Palmer said. He said it will be more personal and that church members will play a role.
Associate pastor John Zivojinovic is the interim senior pastor, and choosing a successor is still months away, Pilcher said.
Given the Haggard story, Pal mer was asked whether Barnes’ fall from grace would expose the evangelical community to further charges of hypocrisy.
“The criticism is valid if you look at perfection being the mark, because the next person who stands at our pulpit is going to be guilty of not being perfect as well,” he said. “Does that mean we have to change what we say about the word of God? We can’t do that.”
From http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4817067
I bet the conservative take on all this will be….’God is cleaning the homos out of his church.’
December 12th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
It’s a tragedy we just can’t be honest.
I’ll post some science abstracts if you’re vaguely interested and hope they do become neat Halieus!
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGC-4B6TYK9-2&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2004&_alid=506355555&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6819&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0dba94206be18c31dddd7a77c7f85905
and
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WY5-46H82SR-8&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2000&_alid=506357341&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=7177&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=92f59b63edeb78cad82c3dc9755fbe2f
and
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WYC-46R0YMD-1M&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1995&_alid=506357736&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=7183&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a801478de208cd02140eae9467f7af4d
and
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WN2-4C6SWT7-5R&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1992&_alid=506358124&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6950&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=28b42da38c1b6c1c2a2b9e013adae8da
and
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B73GT-47FX6W3-26&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1987&_alid=506358460&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=11535&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d2813c6e48770241690156f271c37703
I’d have to say these are indicative of a biological basis for homosexuality… but not “proof”, and some research looking for a biological basis for homosexuality finds no clear links.
It’s really an academic question. In terms of individuals living with same sex attraction, it really doesn’t matter why they experience this, and it shouldn’t matter to the church either… what should matter is understanding and appropriate pastoral care. IMO.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Phew! They became neat!
December 12th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Hi KHOW listeners from Denver.
(In a moment of madness …I rang Mike Jones [Ted Haggard’s mate] who was being interviewed on KHOW morning radio..and congratulated him for ‘coming out’ about Ted.)
The host Peter Boyles asked me if I had a website…and I plugged Signposts.
December 13th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
“Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality.
That’s why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today’s rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!)
Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because “I can’t remember a time when I wasn’t homosexual.”
No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can’t remember a time when excess estrogen wasn’t influencing them.”
—–
James Rutz is chairman of Megashift Ministries and founder-chairman of Open Church Ministries. He is the author of “MEGASHIFT: Igniting Spiritual Power,” and, most recently, “The Meaning of Life.”
From http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327
December 14th, 2006 at 6:24 am
That’s interesting Lance… I know soy products are helpful for women going through menopause because of their phytoestrogens… it’s certainly not the most natural product to pour into a baby.
Just to decode some of the science gobbly-gook in the links I posted… there’s also evidence a couple of drugs if taken by a woman in pregnancy will influence the sexual orientation of their sons. So some homosexuals seem to be “born with it”, but that’s not because of genetics. (there may be genetic factors at work too, but no-one’s found a “gay gene” yet.)
December 14th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Lance post 647:
“I bet the conservative take on all this will be….God is cleaning the homos out of his church.”
So true….sad and frustrating, but true.
If the truth was known, though, I suspect “the church” is the largest closet in the entire world. When I was in seminary years ago, that was certainly the case. If the truth was really known, wouldn’t that be a hard pill for the narrow minded, hating, soul-killing conservatives to swallow?
I hope more and more and more of this happens. The time has come for our heterosexual brothers and sisters to “wake up and smell the coffee.”
You must believe either in chaos, coincidence and chance or purpose and design.
Was it by some terrible, horrible accident that gays found their way into the church - - is God that weak and so small, unable to keep those abominations out of His house?
Or, is God NOT that weak and NOT that small and has known, actually, all along that they were there?
Perhaps He just wants people to know the “truth, ” …….the truth that, yes, there are gay people in the world; the truth that, yes, it shouldn’t be a surprise to you that the minister of music is gay.
Consider the gay community……florists, interior designers, singers, song writers, hair stylists, poets, authors….and the list goes on. Why wouldn’t He want to incorporate all that talent and all of those giftings into His house?
Was it by some horrible mistake that all the gays got all that talent and all those giftings? Is God that weak and so small that all those precious gifts accidentally went to the gays?
people wake up…..
denial is not just a river in Egypt, apparently…..
December 14th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
“That’s why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today’s rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products.”
Of course it’s all crap.
I’ve never had a soy product in my life…..just real milk from Polar Dairies in Chilwell, Geelong….same as my brother and sister who are both straight.
It’s just another stupid pastor..mouthing off bullshit.
December 14th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
the bloke is a loony.
The % of the population has been around 1% for some time and it ain’t on the rise Soy I am told.
Certainly the man shouldn’t have been a pastor and now can never be again. A person that need help most certainly however.
December 14th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
I was going to post yesterday … how much I was enjoying the Homer-free day.
December 14th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Gah.. how embarassing… didn’t bother to read the impeccable scientific credentials of the source!!!!
December 14th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
footballers, brickies, bikies, builders, cops, cowboys, politicians, truckies, taxi drivers, body builders, personal fitness instructors, carpenters, construction workers, indians.
ALL the gays? - bullshit - I’ve known some dumb as crab juice gays and some very untalented karaoke singers to boot!
December 14th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
I thought the contrast between the Denver Dudes and Haggard was quite something - DD sunded as if he was saying that he is what he is and that is that -anyone else get that sense?
December 14th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
634
Janet Says:
December 12th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Just not the back door hey Homer?
December 14th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Enough about “Soy I am told” and back doors. Please!
“The % of the population has been around 1% for some time and it ain’t on the rise”
Might that be because 1% of the population have a homosexual orientation?
This is a really off the wall question Homer… but… do you know anything about Asperger’s?
December 15th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Janet - you make me laugh - Aspergers - that’s it…that is definitely it!
Of course I ahve aspergers as well - I’ve eaten that mabny burgers that my ass looks like a giant ass-burger
December 15th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Janet I do not eat Asbergers at Mc Donalds!
those 1% do indulge in homosexual activity or so they say, actually it is 1-2%. MY mistake
December 15th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Where do you eat your assburgers Homer?