There is nothing remotely defensible about Haggards comments
Hemant posted this article about another movie featuring more of Ted Haggards (not so hidden) addiction to sex.
Why would anyone want to follow the god he so abrasively offered? More ammo for atheists and everyone in between.
I wonder if it would be better for us to stop descrbing ourselves as Christians and instead only use “followers of Jesus”. This kind of hypocrisy pushes me closer to that conviction. Where is the tipping point?
January 25th, 2007 · 40 Comments
Categories: Doable Evangelism
Hemant said
am January 26 2007 @ 7:57 am
Jim– I’m kind of surprised by that reaction. I mean, yes it’s Ted Haggard talking about sex. But outside the context of his scandal, I saw it more of his joking nature to a serious subject and not so much speaking to any “addiction.”
Had I seen the film before reading the interview, I’m thinking my first reaction would’ve been, “It’s funny to hear them speaking about sex so frankly because normally when I think “conservative Christian,” that’s the last thing I imagine them talking about.”
I’ve said something similar before, but there’s a lot to not like about Ted Haggard. This discussion isn’t one of them.
– Hemant
John Smulo said
am January 26 2007 @ 12:23 pm
I found this really painful to watch. And the conversation with Haggard asking those guys about their sex life–and them lying about it!–was especially painful viewing.
I tend to use the word ‘Christian’ when describing situations like this. But when I describe myself I almost always use ‘Jesus-follower’.
I think that we have already crossed over the line of ‘Christian’ being an unproductive word. If I tell someone I’m a Christian, the stereotypes that are likely to come to mind are misleading.
I’ve written more on this here
John Smulo said
am January 26 2007 @ 12:24 pm
Sorry, link didn’t come up
http://www.johnsmulo.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17
Helen said
am January 26 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Scot McKnight wrote on his blog today about using the E-word
This is how he describes himself, according to the end of his article:
Jim Henderson said
am January 30 2007 @ 8:41 am
Henmant – My comment about Haggard exposing his addicition to sex was an opinion but one based on 35 years of watching men like Haggard sel implode in public
Ben said
am February 1 2007 @ 11:13 am
Yes, it is sad that my former pastor Ted Haggard self-imploded. I think the whole situation caused me to reflect upon my own life. Am I a man of integrity? Do I have people surrounding me who are constantly aware of the things I do? I think we all must remember that even though pastors are held to a higher standard, they are still human. As much as I admired Ted for his influental wisdom into my own life, and was saddend by his sin, the situation brought to mind others who have fallen in similiar manner within the public eye – i.e. Moses, David, Solomon, Paul (when he denied Christ), and many others. Should this be the standard amongst Christians and those who lead within the Christian community? By no means.
This is the time that we should be lifting him up before his Creator and pray that he is restored, and that God’s hand molds and shapes him into the man that God designed him to be!
Ben said
am February 1 2007 @ 12:52 pm
P.S. I say “fallen in a similiar manner,” in regards to the fact that they all sinned in the midst of the public eye. Each of them “self imploded” to a certian degree.
Ben said
am February 2 2007 @ 9:47 am
Here is a good article on Ted Haggard: http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=2248926&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
Jim Henderson said
am February 2 2007 @ 8:51 pm
Ben
While I admire your willingness to pray for the best for pastor Ted – what does it make you think about why men like Ted emerge as leaders in the church? In what ways is what he did different in kind from Pres Clinton?
Ben said
am February 7 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Ted isn’t necessarily different in the regard to leadership and sexual sin, with the exception of one major thing – Ted is a Christian and a godly man. Consider David in the Scriptures. Was he not a leader, and fouled big time with his sexual sin? I mean here is a leader who first lusted in seeing her naked, then had sex, and had her husband murdered. Yet, even so, David was a man after God’s own heart. Could that not be so for Ted then, in his restoration? If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever?
As far as the question, “What does it make you think about when men like Ted lead in the church?” It makes me think of myself, ultimately. I want to lead in the church, and I am just as much human as Ted is. Do I have the power to resist temptation? Sure. But in my humanity are there traps that could possibly cause me to stumble. Yes. Satan will always be around to try and tempt me. Ted is, and was a great leader. Let us not forget that Solomon was a great leader, Moses was a great leader, and David was a great leader. What happened to them in the end? They were consumed enough with trying to handle things on their own that they fell into sin. To this day, I would still consider them great leaders, and men of God.
In saying this, it doesn’t justify what Ted did. By no means. What he did was absolutely wrong. However, he was an incredible leader.
Ben said
am February 7 2007 @ 4:08 pm
Also, to borrow a quote from someone I know, “What if evangelism meant just being yourself?” – Christ = perfect, therefore he evangelized perfect, and was Himself in doing so. Ted = not perfect, therefore evangelized being himself.
Helen said
am February 7 2007 @ 8:03 pm
Ben, could you elaborate on what made Ted such a great leader? I don’t actually know that much about him.
benjamin ady said
am February 8 2007 @ 10:32 pm
Ben,
I really like the fact that you brought David into the conversation about Ted. David is a bit mysterious, really, isn’t he? I mean he was certainly in such a position of power that his having sex with his best friend’s wife could have amounted to rape. Then she gets pregnant, he murders his best friend, using his other good friend to carry out the murder, and then marries the now widow. and it says crazy things like “man after my own heart”, and here’s the dude through whom Jesus came, and upon whose throne Jesus is said to (futurishly) sit.
Plus other really yucko stuff, like the bride price of 100 foreskins, and the fact that he couldn’t build the temple because his hands were too bloody, and so forth.
It seems to me to be a reasonable comparions, but I draw a different conclusion. the comparison doesn’t make me say “well, Ted must be ok”. It makes me say “what the hell up with David anyway? ‘man after god’s heart’? so what kind of heart does god have? Yikesola.”
thoughts?
Ben said
am February 9 2007 @ 11:24 am
Those are great questions, Benjamin. I, too, have often questioned the profound and complex mysteries of God. I wouldn’t necessarily say that Ted must be ok, either. He sinned, and he sinned big time. However, that doesn’t make it our place to judge and condemn him for his actions. He is being disciplined and the shame and guilt lies very heavily upon him.
You know, I wonder the same thing about David. I mean, here we first have a young boy who is given strength by God to kill lions and bears with his own hands (Can I say, “Wow!”), he has amazing poetic and musical talent, God gives him his calling as king over the land, He kills Goliath, God rescues him countless times from death at the hands of Saul, God gives him great wisdom, integrity, authority, and leadership, and then David goes off and lusts, acts out of his lust and has adulterous sex, kills her husband (his friend), they continue in the relationship, and have a baby. David is disciplined for his sin, but God still uses David, even after all that, and still considers him a man, after God’s own heart. Why? Why, does Moses kill a man and then God use him to take the Israelites away from Egypt (which, in turn helped to change the course of history for the Israelites)? Then God tells Moses, “Then the LORD said: “I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you,” in Exodus 34:10.
In addition, this all happened prior to one of God’s most wonderful gift’s to us, the death of His son on the cross, to cover all our sins. It does make you question, doesn’t it? But I think that that is the beauty in the mystery of God. The full extent of His grace and mercy is beyond our comprehension. I don’t think their will ever be a full understanding of God’s heart until we see him face to face. Do we have an idea of His heart? Sure. Each of His names describes an aspect of His heart, His personality, and His character. Check out this website for the vast descriptions of God – http://www.characterbuildingforfamilies.com/names.html
So, here you go Benjamin. These are some of my thoughts. I am by no means a Biblical scholar or an expert on God (there actually will never be an expert on God, because He will always remain a mystery), but I will end with a quote from James 2:13, “Mercy triumphs over judgement!
Helen said
am February 9 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Benjamin wrote:
Ben, I love how honest you are!
I suppose one thing we can say from the text was, it was God who said David couldn’t build the temple because he wasn’t a man of peace – so David evidently wasn’t a man after God’s own heart as far as the violence was concerned.
So maybe God is a bit better than David at David’s worst
Ben, I love that quote from James 2:13. Could you share why you feel Ted was such a great leader?
Ben said
am February 9 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Jim,
I thought of a few more things that I would like to add to my answers to your questions, and then maybe pose a question or two, myself.
You asked, “In what ways is what he did different in kind from Pres Clinton”
We could get into a pretty big discussion over this question alone. In fact, it could almost turn political… lol. There is one obvious really big difference (which could bring the discussion to a whole new level). Ted is a Christian, and was a pastor. Bill is not a Christian and was the president. Now here is where things can go for a turn – we didn’t have to have Bill in leadership in the first place. We all knew from the very beginning that he wasn’t a devote believer, and he had screwball ideas. As Christians, we could have stopped him from becoming president. But a mass majority of Christians chose not to even vote. Now, am I saying that Bill’s actions with Monica are our fault? No, but to think that the embarrassment of our country and leadership over it could have never taken place if the Christian community would have had the guts to make a stand, and keep him out of office, we wouldn’t have some of the embarrassing black marks that our country has today (this includes some of his other lousy decisions)! Anyways, all that to say that there is a vast difference between a follower of God and a non-follower.
Can I now ask you the very same question you asked me? You asked, “what does it make you think about why men like Ted emerge as leaders in the church?” What does it make you think about when God uses men like Moses, David, Jonah, Peter, Solomon, Judas, and Paul as leaders? I’m sure there are a number of contemporary leaders that are in the same boat, Jim Bakker being one of them (whom, while I don’t know the full extent of his ministry, is “back in the saddle”). What does it make you think about yourself, as a leader? We’re all sinners. We’re all gonna be judged by the same God.
Ben said
am February 9 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Helen,
I originally didn’t know how to actually respond to your question. I want to tell you all the reasons why he was (and still can be in the future) a great leader, but it would turn into a book. On the other hand, I know that in answering this question, those who have judged and condemned Ted, don’t really care about what I think or know. They just want to stick with their prejudice. So, in saying that, I will try and give a a short and sweet answer. How’s that? Ted was a great leader, because he was gifted, annointed, and called by God. There’s a lot of fruit because of his leadership. There are many pastors and leaders that have been nurtured by him while under his leadership, which is why the church is still running strong to this day.
I can’t remember the book where this Scripture is in the NT, but it says, “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”
If you would like to gain more knowledge and insight into the leadership of Ted there are some books by him that you could purchase. See this website as an example: http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Ted%20Haggard&page=1
benjamin ady said
am February 9 2007 @ 6:50 pm
Ben,
I’m really intrigued. You talked a little about Bill and Ted and ended up by saying “all that to say there is a vast difference between a follower of God and a non follower”
If I allow for the sake of discussion that, as you posit, Bill is a non-follower of God, and Ted is a follower of God (which I don’t actually think), then i must agree with you but on a different basis. It looks to me like overall Bill seems to be the better human being. Bill lied about having had sex with Monica, it’s true. But it seems to me like Ted’s lies were on a lot more levels and went on for a lot longer. Bill wasn’t claiming to be … morally excellent, I guess.
Plus, look what Bill’s foundation is doing. Bill Clinton is working hard to MTWABP. I’m not clear on what Mr. Haggard is doing along these lines. Do you know if Ted has such a foundation, or what he is doing or has done to address extreme poverty, disease, and so forth in the 3rd world?
Are you suggesting that our nation would have looked better to the rest of the world, or been more “christian” if christians had voted in droves and elected George H.W. Bush in 92, or Mr. Dole in 96? That seems to me to be a bit of a stretch.
Helen said
am February 9 2007 @ 8:17 pm
Ben why do you say Bill Clinton is not a Christian? Here’s a quote from him:
(quote taken from this article by Bill Clinton)
If he believes the Bible is completely true doesn’t that mean he’s a Christian?
Thanks for your answer about Ted. Thanks for the link; however I don’t think books written by Ted will tell me whether he’s a great leader – I’d need to hear that from other people.
FYI the verse you quoted is Romans 11:29.
Helen said
am February 10 2007 @ 6:52 am
I thought this was interesting: Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual
I’d have more respect for him if he admitted to being attracted to a guy on occasion. What is he trying to prove here?
Maybe he’s wrong – maybe he’s actually a-sexual and every time he has sex he’s ‘acting out’.
benjamin ady said
am February 10 2007 @ 11:37 am
That is fascinating and a bit sad. Why is he making statements like this so soon after it was so clearly demonstrated that his statements can’t be trusted? Why not just be fairly quiet for a while, in terms of public statements, or else keep it to things that are simple and clearly true?
What in god’s name does “completely heterosexual” mean anyway? Does it mean “I *intend* to never have homosexual sex again”? or “I *intend* to never have another lustful thought toward a man”? Or maybe it means “I think it’s important for the sake of my former church and the NAE that I say this”? I wish I could ask for some clarification.
Helen said
am February 10 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Not everyone is convinced…
Ben said
am February 12 2007 @ 10:14 am
“Sexuality is very complex. So, for many people, depending on what issues they deal with … it could be months, it could be years,” said Thomas. “So for someone to claim complete healing … I find that remarkable.”
I agree with Thomas that it’ll take a while. Ted is not done with his restoration. Yet. As you will read Helen, in the link you posted, it says this: “New Life congregants will be told that the Haggards will relocate to continue their healing and restoration – a “mutual” agreement that they and the church have come to, according to an e-mail sent to church members on Wednesday by interim pastor Ross Parsley. The agreement also includes a pledge by Haggard not to speak publicly about the scandal.”
This quote right here says that he is not done with the restoration. He has a long way to go still. Also, further down in the article where the overseer shares to the public what the counselors and psychologists told him, doesn’t mean that Ted is healed, either. The counselors and psychologists did many tests on him THEY were the one’s that came to the conclusion that he is definantly heterosexual. What this means is that he isn’t an “all-out-guys-only kinda guy.” He loves the female gender absolutely more then the male gender.
“I’d have more respect for him if he admitted to being attracted to a guy on occasion. What is he trying to prove here?”
I don’t know if you’re married Helen, but let’s just say that you are. Are you telling me that If you were married you’d feel comfortable with standing in front of the church (whether you were a leader or not) and letting everyone know every once and a while that you love your husband, but that you are sexually turned on by women? Are you telling me that you would actually do that? Be honest here! I mean, come on! Do you know how hard that would be? Especially knowing that it is a sin, and that you would be looked down upon? It is part of our fleshly nature to not want to look like a horribly sinfully bad person. Who wants to be judged by another? Peter denied Christ three times. Think about the shame he was feeling as he did it, but he was looking out for himself. I find it ironic that we as Christians consider Peter a leader and a great disciple of Christ, even after he denied the very man that discipled him personally for 3 years, and then we bash and condemn Ted for committing several acts of sin, and his genuine repentance of it and his wanting and longing for full restoration. Why must we judge him and basically call him a worthless leader and that he was never a follower of God, when it is really up to God to make that decision?
Let me ask you this Benjamin, and Helen. Are you perfect? If you answered yes, well that is between you and God, if you answered no, then I would assume that you sin occasionally, or even frequently. So, I would assume then, because of your statements, that you would not consider yourselves followers of God because of the mere fact that you sin, is that correct? After all, isn’t that what you are saying?
Benjamin, you essentially stated that because Ted sinned that he isn’t and never was a follower of God. So, then I can conclude that you, me, Helen, your churches, and every other so-called follower of God, is really not a follower of God after all. This sucks, because what are we living for then. I guess Christ’s death on the cross didn’t mean anything after did it? It was pointless, the shedding of his blood. It didn’t cover all of our sin, it just covered the sins of nothing-ness, right?
“Bill Clinton is working hard to MTWABP. I’m not clear on what Mr. Haggard is doing along these lines. Do you know if Ted has such a foundation, or what he is doing or has done to address extreme poverty, disease, and so forth in the 3rd world?”
So, are you saying, Benjamin, that, because Ted sinned that he needs to do something like MTWABP (whatever that stands for)? You’re a sinner, right Benjamin, so are you making yourself look good to the rest of the public by doing something like MTWABP? One of the only reasons Bill is doing that foundation is to look good in the public and try to wipe the slate clean from everyone’s memory what he did during is presidency. Ted has always done similar things. New Life Church has given thousands towards poverty, missions, and making sure that we provide buses to pick up the mentally and physically handicapped to come to church and be fed and provide them with great teaching that they can individually understand.
“If he believes the Bible is completely true doesn’t that mean he’s a Christian?”
Anyone can say that! Heck, the demons believe in God, that doesn’t mean that they are Christians!
“however I don’t think books written by Ted will tell me whether he’s a great leader”
So, are you saying that reading the Bible doesn’t tell you whether or not, Jesus, Daniel, Joseph, David, the Disciples, Esther, and countless others, where good leaders? The books written by Ted would definantly give you a great indication of his leadership qualities and skills. Maybe this quote from time magazine will help, too: “In 2005, Haggard was listed by Time magazine as one of the top 25 most influential evangelicals in America.”
Ben said
am February 12 2007 @ 11:08 am
P.S. When I made this comment: “If he believes the Bible is completely true doesn’t that mean he’s a Christian?”
Anyone can say that! Heck, the demons believe in God, that doesn’t mean that they are Christians!”
I essentially was trying to say (although this isn’t obvious) that there were many things that Clinton made decisions about that a Christian or moral man wouldn’t do. So, he may have claimed to be a Christian, and I’m not going to judge his heart, but there were a multitude of actions and words on his part that would indicate otherwise.
Helen said
am February 12 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Ben, I’m fine with someone choosing to keep certain things to themself. What concerns me is lying.
I think it’s interesting that you portray revealing something personal like that in church as such a horrendous concept. Why do you think church people are so judgmental that this concept is horrendous? Why are people outside the church more accepting than inside?
I don’t recall saying that a person has to be 100% perfect to be a follower of God. Maybe you can show me where I said that.
See, for me, whatever greatness as a leader people thought he had is overshadowed by the knowledge that what he was leading in was lying and hiding a secret life.
Ben said
am February 12 2007 @ 5:04 pm
Helen, what concerns me is lying, too. I was simply painting a picture for you. It is hard to come to terms when you’ve put yourself in a terrible position of sinning, especially being in the public eye. At the moment that the “sin spotlight” was put on Ted, he realized that his life and ministry were ruined. I think it would be extremely difficult for any person to immediately tell the truth when they are in the midst of complete shock, complete shame, and a feeling of utter failure. I mean, here is a man who was somewhat incoherent at his home around his family, because he couldn’t deal with the vast consequences of the revealing of his sins. It’s extremely painful to be in his position, and I am pretty sure it would be for you, too, or anybody else for that matter. Should he have told the truth, yes, but again, put yourself in his shoes, knowing that your life’s work and passion is now in complete shambles.
I never said, nor indicated that revealing something in church is/was a horrendous concept. I think it can be a good idea. Does anyone ever really do it? That is the question. I dare say that you have never stood in front the church and blurted out to the congregation any of your sins, am I correct? Should we be more accountable to one another? You bet!
I also never said that you said that everyone has to be a 100% perfect to be a follower of God. If you read that question you will find that it is just that, a question; addressed to you and Benjamin.
You stated: “See, for me, whatever greatness as a leader people thought he had is overshadowed by the knowledge that what he was leading in was lying and hiding a secret life.”
Let me answer out of my own personal view of this statement and then let me ask you a question.
The Lord used Ted to nurture me in soooo many ways. I’ve been truly blessed to be under the leadership of him. My walk with the Lord over the past 14 years of attending the church has grown exponentially through his knowledge, wisdom, and understanding of Scripture. He has taught me what it is to be a leader. He has taught well on the importance of integrity, the importance of good character, the importance of living a moral, upstanding life, and how to live a life in full pursuit of God. Just because he sinned, doesn’t mean that, all of his preaching and life lessons are invalid. Does it? They’re all Biblical teachings and they’re all very relevant and true to living and pursuing a life dedicated to God.
If I can bring an example to the table, while it might seem like a far stretch, hopefully you will understand the correlation. Just because Christ rose into heaven and is no longer on this earth in physical form, doesn’t make His teachings irrelevant, correct? His teachings that He taught over 2000 years ago still ring truth about how to live righteously. That is the same about Ted’s teachings. His teachings still ring truth. Remember that God can still use a sinner to do his work. After all, you and I are sinners, and he uses us! So, the things we share should still be valid, even if we sin, right? They still are truths about God, and how we should live our life, even if we ourselves don’t always do it.
My question to you is: If you found out tomorrow that your own pastor has been sinning for sometime, would you then find everything he has ever said to not be from the mouth of a great leader? I think we should remember that he DID lead great, but may not now be such a “great” leader. Moses led great, until he sinned against God, but that doesn’t make him an all around bad leader.
benjamin ady said
am February 12 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Ben,
Wanted to respond to a coupla things you said. But first, I’m stoked for you that you received so much good from Ted’s ministry. I’m sure many others did too. I did not mean to come across as attacking Ted, and I hope I have not come across that way
I think you may have misunderstood what I said about being a follower of God. I never said that Ted was not a follower of god. I only meant to say that I think Bill Clinton is also a follower of god, and … perhaps at least as good at doing that, in practice, as Ted.
Just so you know, I don’t have a pastor, I don’t attend church, so really some of your questions don’t apply to me. As I currently am, I would have no problem standing in front of a church and speaking honestly about my shortcomings, although I guess I would be hoping to try to do that in a way that wouldn’t put up walls or turn people off so far so fast that they couldn’t even hear what I was saying. One of the major problems I have with the church is that it is so often a system where there is an outside and an inside, and the outside is dressed up very beautifully many times, and the inside, meanwhile, is full of both glory and horror, dazzling light and terrifying darkness. The church is often a community with a set of rules whereby we help each other to pretend that only the glory/light side is true, or that it is more true. In doing this the church makes god (or … ultimate reality) very tiny, and this is very sad.
However, back when I cared more what ‘the church’ thought about me–back when I was inside the system I just described–yes, you are right, I would have felt a lot of shame in speaking honestly about my own inner dark side. I can see that of course this is part of what Ted has gone through. This is why I think it’s enormously sad and misguided for New Life Church and the NAE to take a line that says “Ted is to blame–he’s the one who created this mess”, whereas in reality people hurt each other as part of a system, and the system and the person both bear parts of the responsibility.
MTWABP stands for Making the World a Better Place. I don’t really do this as much as I want to. I in one sense get sucked in to the whole American consume consume consume mentality–it’s all about *my* comfort and *my* pleasure. But I am gradually working to point my life on a trajectory of MTWABP being a or the major component. The point isn’t so I can look good. The point is that there is a ton of suffering in the world, and I’ve been given a ton of benefits–I’ve been placed in a very unfair position in being so relatively filthy rich, pain free, etc. So I’m wanting to both grow increasingly interested in making things more fair, and to actually work towards making things more fair.
I think bringing one’s life into this trajectory is somehow more essentially ‘christian’ than a lot of the things we associate with ‘christianity’
To restate that, I think American evangelical christianity has narrowed the meaning of ‘moral’ into almost non-existence. Could ‘moral’ also be related to MTWABP, and caring for the poor, as well as not committing sexual immorality?
Just one more thing–one thing I’ve learned and try to practice is not to impute motives. So if someone does or says something, I try not to assume that I know or have any clue about their motivations or even their underlying meanings. I find this helps me in relationships–if I just ask and be really curious instead of imputing motives. So I’m a bit leary about your imputing of motives to Clinton for why he does the stuff with his foundation.
Helen said
am February 13 2007 @ 7:00 am
Ben, I don’t go to church anymore either.
It’s not that I necessarily disagree with you that someone can teach good principles even if they are not living them.
The problem for me is that we have to justify this; that we have got into a situation where teaching and living are two separate things that don’t match. I would rather learn from someone’s role-modeling than them preaching something to me. And I have to wonder – if they can’t even live it themselves, how can I be expected to?
I used to go to church a lot and when I did, I was more impressed by what my pastors did than by what they said. I was impressed when a pastor stooped down so a child could talk to him and he could hear. I was impressed when the Bible study class broke into discussion groups and the pastor who was teaching sat off to the side and prayed quietly.
What they do impresses me more than what they say, because it’s much easier to say something than to do it.
Jim Henderson said
am February 22 2007 @ 10:30 am
So was my good friend Brian McLaren
Helen said
am February 22 2007 @ 3:36 pm
That’s an interesting list:
Ben said
am February 26 2007 @ 8:56 am
Hello all. I was on a wonderful week long vacation in CA with my wife visiting our grandparents and seeing where she grew up. To my dismay, I am now back to working again (sad).
Benjamin Ady,
In your last post you said, “One of the major problems I have with the church is that it is so often a system where there is an outside and an inside, and the outside is dressed up very beautifully many times, and the inside, meanwhile, is full of both glory and horror, dazzling light and terrifying darkness. The church is often a community with a set of rules whereby we help each other to pretend that only the glory/light side is true, or that it is more true. In doing this the church makes god (or … ultimate reality) very tiny, and this is very sad.”
I agree with you here, brother. I, too, see this. Part of the reason I want to lead/pastor/evangelize in the church, is to open the eyes of the American church to this very sad reality. I guess my feelings are that if you want to see the church changed, you must go church. What I mean by that is, you can’t really change the church, or see the church changed by not ever going to church again.
I find it interesting how some Christians handle some of the criticizms. I guess it is a question for everyone here. It’s 1 question – in 4 parts:
Why go to the extreme of not going to church, if you don’t like certian things that a church may be doing?
Why go the extreme of coming to the conclusion that we shouldn’t call ourselves Christians, but instead “Followers of Christ?
Why go to these extremes? How far are we going to go with these kind of extremes, before someone says that maybe we shouldn’t even read the Bible, or even follow God?
How can we make an impact for Christ, by eliminating ourselves from the equation? Sometimes creating a new equation can work, but I don’t see how completely removing the equation from the problem, fixes the equation, or the problem.
For example: Christ said to be in the world, not of the world, but he still asked us to go into the world and preach.
Helen,
You said,
“The problem for me is that we have to justify this; that we have got into a situation where teaching and living are two separate things that don’t match. I would rather learn from someone’s role-modeling than them preaching something to me. And I have to wonder – if they can’t even live it themselves, how can I be expected to?”
Believe me Helen, I agree with you here – whole-heartedly. That is why Jesus is the perfect role-model.
With this, though, I would like to ask a few questions. I haven’t had time to read the article that you linked to, so I will just ask… Do you then have a “home church?” If you do, would this not be the same thing? Here is what I mean by that: Are you not still relying on someone’s humanity (the leader in your home church) to then be somewhat of that role-model? Would not this leader fit the description of living “two separate lives?”
Or, if you are leading your own walk with God, are you not an imperfect role-model?
If I may, let me bring another of my ponders to the table – How much of the Bible do you read? I meant the previous in regards to this: Do you read the whole Bible, or just some of the Bible? Or, to put it more plainly, do you only read the Scripture for which Jesus (or God) spoke (you know, the red-lettered parts of the Bible)? Because, if you read anything other in the Scripture, are you not relying on the imperfect (two-separate life live-r) tellings of God of the human author?
No Doubt that Scripture is God- breathed, and God-inspired, but most of it was articulated through corrupted, sinful people. So, where is the line drawn for you? I’d be curious to know.
Jim, why is it that you have yet to respond to my questions to you? Did I put you at a loss for words?
Jim Henderson said
am February 26 2007 @ 10:52 am
Ben you asked why God uses men like Moses etc- Right- why did he?
Of course we’re all sinners but when someone claims they are an examples of someone trying not to be a sinner and then LIES about it and only comes clean when they are CAUGHT (which is the club Ted and Bill are both part of) then they are MORE complicit than those who don’t make that claim.
That’s called being a gross hypocrite. I can identify with Ted as a fellow sinner that doesnt mean I respect him as a leader
BTW- your characterization (and certainty) about Ted being a Christian and Bill not being reveals more about your political views than your biblical understanding.
Ben said
am February 26 2007 @ 11:39 am
Jim,
You said,
“Of course we’re all sinners but when someone claims they are an examples of someone trying not to be a sinner and then LIES about it and only comes clean when they are CAUGHT (which is the club Ted and Bill are both part of) then they are MORE complicit than those who don’t make that claim.
That’s called being a gross hypocrite. I can identify with Ted as a fellow sinner that doesnt mean I respect him as a leader.”
I understand your point about Bill & Ted being in the same camp as hypocrites when it comes to lying about what they did. Isn’t it unfortunate that we are then, all hypocrites? We all lie, or have lied at one time or another, have we not? Just a fact that I thought I’d point out. However, given the leaderships roles they were in, they should not have lied.
Your next comment:
“BTW- your characterization (and certainty) about Ted being a Christian and Bill not being reveals more about your political views than your biblical understanding. ”
Interesting conjecture. Where do you base your certianty on this statement? Are you not being a little hasty on judging me for something for which you know not of?
Are you also claiming by this statement that you are for certian (beyond the shadow of a doubt) that Ted was not a Christian? If you read my posts more thoroughly, you will find that I made room for the possibility of Bill being a Christian, but from what I have gathered it appears that, it is but a label for him, not a life.
Ben said
am February 26 2007 @ 11:44 am
Jim,
you also said, “Ben you asked why God uses men like Moses etc- Right- why did he?”
Are you uncertian about the answer? After all, I asked you first. Why pose the question back at me if you yourself questioned my Biblical understanding?
benjamin ady said
am February 26 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Ben
Nice to see you’re back. Thought we’d lost you. sorry you’re sad about being back to work. That must suck.
You asked a couple intersting questions.
I don’t really see “not going to church” as extreme. Anyway, for me, it wasn’t so much about not liking certain things the church was doing as much as just not feeling a part anymore–the whole thing–the entirety of the church from it’s rituals to it’s culture to … name it, was making less and less sense to me. In a sense I reached a point where it was basically dishonest for me to go to church.
Actually, I don’t really call myself either.
I don’t read the Bible anymore, and god is very mysterious to me. I wouldn’t characterize myself as following him/her. and I wouldn’t characterize myself as extreme. In fact, I would say that I was a lot more extreme back when I was reading the bible and “following god”, and I don’t mean that with an entirely positive connotation.
What does that mean–to make an impact for Christ? an impact can be a good thing or a bad thing. could we rephrase it “an impact for good”? I’m hoping to use my life to make an impact for good. I want to see suffering reduced in the world. I want to see a more sensible distribution of resources, so that thousands of people don’t die of starvation every day while I sit in this nice climate controlled building with my high speed internet connection. There’s an impact that I’d like to see, and while I think Christians can (and by god ought to!) be a huge part of this impact, I also suspect it’s going to take christians and muslims and buddhists and agnostics and so forth working together to make the sort of impact I’m looking for.
(stepping off soap box now)
thankyou for the questions.
Helen said
am February 26 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Ben, no, I don’t go to a home church.
Jim Henderson said
am February 26 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Ben
I just figured out who you are. I apologize for speaking so caustically in my response to you. If I had known it was you I would have been gentler and forced myself to not give in to my tiredness. I do aoologize for my dismissive tone.
Ben – I think that you and Benjamin have a much more fruitful discussion going on here so I am going to drop out- The reality is that I have a number of other things I need to be writing about.
Hope you understand
Jim
Ben said
am February 26 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Jim,
I was just told by someone that it sounded like I was being a little defensive in my last post, and I want to let you know that that wasn’t my intent. I was trying to reach you on a more itillectual basis, concerning your previous comments. I pray that you understand that I’m not trying to stab at you, but to bring out points that should be discussed. Forgive me
Ben said
am February 26 2007 @ 5:29 pm
**correction – I was trying to reach you on a more intellectual level.
BTW – I do want to let you know that we both have the same heart and same passion in reaching out and being a light and example to those around us. In the next following years, as the Lord guides and directs, I will be used by Him to confront the “American Church” and the chaos, sin, and hypocrisy that abounds in “the church” today. Change is needed. Revival is needed.
Jim Henderson said
am February 26 2007 @ 11:17 pm
Im with you Ben