DISQUS

jessie · 3 years ago

Yes, it is just an allegation right now. Given that it's just an allegation, speculation about its implications makes little sense. If it turns out to be true, I don't really see how it would change any views on gay marriage. I imagine the reaction by most would just be sadness mixed with a renewed call to spiritual accountability and sexual purity.


Amy seems to be doing a good bit of wishful thinking in this post. Everything in life is not political.>

Matt Butcher · 3 years ago

I kind of agree that things can always be twisted towards political ends. However, seeing as how fundamentalists have become so involved in politics and advocating government policing of public morality, this kind of allegation -- especially if confirmed -- can be particularly damning in the public realm. I'm torn here. If Haggard has had such liasons, they are clearly at odds with his religious beliefs (and mine, as well). However, Jesus exhorts us not to judge one another. We have all sinned, and once we know someone who is gay -- as a counselor, and a straight, Christian male, I'm in the minority in my profession -- it gets tougher to advocate for limiting civil rights for people who have a different proclivity than oneself. The solution? As I've always heard it, from my Baptist upbringing to my current Lutheran (ELCA) membership, is to love someone through the hard times. Though I do not know Haggard personally, whatever his problems are, I can still love him through Christ.>

D4P · 3 years ago

I'm kinda surprised Haggard immediately stepped down from his posts. If I were falsely accused like he claims to have been, I think I'd be compelled to defend myself and stand my ground.>

Donny Pauling · 3 years ago

Perhaps the church will someday realize that the "sin" of homosexuality is no greater than any other sin.


One can only hope.>

D4P · 3 years ago

Perhaps the church will someday realize that the "sin" of homosexuality is no greater than any other sin


Maybe the church will also realize that hetersexual adultery has damaged more marriages and families than homosexuality ever will>

D4P · 3 years ago

The acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted that some of the accusations were true, but Parsley did not elaborate.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Wow. could not have happened to a nicer guy (well if they are true.)


p>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

Wow,


So, is this an example of the positive campaigning Amy Sullivan is pining for? Amy, you are absolutely, positively pathetic.>

jw · 3 years ago

I see it as --at the heart-- a pure case of adultery. Adultery is something one expects, while seeking to keep to a minimum. Look at adultery in the same way you look at traffic accidents and the whole thing makes more sense.


The gay side issue is another matter. Due to Christianity's anti-gay and "males are disposable machinery" agenda there must be a significant number of male leaders who are closet-gays. To expect anything else would be daft. To think there would be anything else is to not understand the basics of human behavior.



The stress on today's male population is so great, so massive, that one MUST expect a lot of our male Christian leaders behave in ways which are directly counter to what they say. To have anything else would be impossible.



This too will change, probably suddenly and almost for sure in a very loud manner.>

rh · 3 years ago

What should be heartbreaking for everyone is that you have someone in religious leadership who is leading a double life. The church is dealing with it responsibly by having Haggard step aside immediately until the truth of the allegations are determined. This is the way that a church should do things when the allegations are of this nature. However, false allegations are a constant in pastoral vocation at all levels Pastors are incredibly vulnerable not because of their own weaknesses (true enough) but because so many people project their own wounds and hatreds upon them. Politicians simply do not experience this phenomenon in the same way. Even though I disagree with Rev Haggard on many issues I am hoping and praying that these allegations are not true. I pray for his family and friends, and I pray for his congregation. This will have a political ripple no doubt, but it is not primarily about politics.>

John · 3 years ago

I'm still trying to figure out why he resigned NAE. I understand the church leadership leave--there's an internal investigation, and he shouldn't be in charge of it. But it looks like the immediate and final resignation from NAE is purely to save NAE from bad press. Such a radical course of action seems unlikely to me, if he is indeed innocent.


As for this statement, above: "The acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted that some of the accusations were true, but Parsley did not elaborate." I can't find any evidence of this string of words on the web. Can D4P produce some further authentication?>

John · 3 years ago

Let me answer my own question:
">http://www.kktv.com/news/headlines/4557411.html>

cd · 3 years ago

I understand that when you take a bold public stand, your life and actions fall under more scrutiny, however what is dissapointing here has nothing to do with his politics, his NAE 30 million members(or whatever), or his church of 14,000. What is truely disapointing is that a man has fallen.


A man has fallen and a family has been hurt in a way that is potentially preventable if we would understand that all men/women are fallen; that, as one comment put it, the sin of homosexuality is no different from any other sin... how many of us have already told that little white lie today, or re-told that little tidbit of information to a dozen others who are not involved.



Yes, the public and political consequenses will be vast, possibly more wide-spread than any of us can imagine. But politics be damned, today is a very sad day in the life of the Haggard family.>

jessie · 3 years ago

"Perhaps the church will someday realize that the "sin" of homosexuality is no greater than any other sin."


--And perhaps all churches will someday consider homosexual acts sinful (like any other sin).



Good point, Kevin. I think Amy pulled a McLaren when she said she's not doing something (schadenfreude) she really seems to be doing. I see no evidence of pity from Amy about the situation. No calls to "keep Haggard and his family in our prayers." Just someone who is not an evangelical using a possible sin committed by an evangelical to make a political point. That is sad.>

Dan S · 3 years ago

Even if true, I doubt this will change many people's minds about homosexuality. Usually it takes knowing someone personally to see it in a different light.>

Daniel · 3 years ago

To an extent I agree with Kevin and Jessie. Amy hasn't here respected Haggard's person enough - if he's lied then he deserves forgiveness and humility all around.


But that might be expecting more frmo one specific commentary; this post functions primarily in the abstract - Amy's talking not about the condition of Ted Haggard's soul but about what this means for the conservative Evangelical community as a whole. I, for one, don't think this will effect many evangelicals' commitments. Haggard will just be seen as a bad egg in need of psychological and theological help while the Bible beat goes on. Liberals will see it as the intrusion of the repressed self on the idealized self and, instead of practicing empathy and connection will start castigating conservatives as usual. Everyone hunkers down with their own base and nothing changes. If anyone has a comment to cut across these lines, please share.>

Benjamin · 3 years ago

I'm a blog addict, and interested in religion too, but this is my first venture into a religious blog. It's nice to see that people seem basically polite -- except that guy who called Amy 'pathetic'. A welcome relief from political blogs. I hope this is true of religious blogs in general.>

SkipChurch · 3 years ago

What's the official conservative Christian party line on the causes of homosexuality these days?


I don't suppose it could be that gay sex is more pleasurable than heterosexual sex. Could it? And I don't imagine the idea of God making a "mistake" has much appeal either.



When Christians come to understand that forcing gay men and women into heterosexual marriages is more destructive than frankly acknowledging the reality of homosexual preference, they'll be on their way to a life governed by reason and common sense.



Judging by the freakout over the Episcopalians, I'm not holding my breath though.>

D4P · 3 years ago

Haggard will just be seen as a bad egg in need of psychological and theological help while the Bible beat goes on.


And Fox News will put a (D) after his name>

Daniel · 3 years ago

Skip,


I have a conservative friend who has no heterosexual impulse but does have homosexual impulses. He views this as part of his own unique sinful nature - God has given him a pet sin with which to struggle. So, he has sworn off sex forever. He and I are both Episcopalian. He thinks the church is making a mistake, that it should accept gay people but not fudge on whether it is a sin or not (like Jessie calls for above).



I have known and been close with too many gay people to go on thinking it is anything more than a biological development. Where my friend would still see a 'gay gene' as part of the sinful nature I see it as no more sinful as having red hair or darker skin. It troubles me greatly to see that Evangelicals think Paul was delivering a new Law. I think that is a serious misunderstanding of Paul and of what Jesus accomplished. For me, the standard for sin is not a given rule delivered to Moses from God or the Romans from Paul, but whether or not it creates a division between a person's soul and God. That's what Gene Shepherd is referring to when he notes that gay parishoners lives bear just as healthy fruit as everyone else. I've known married heterosexual men whose sex lives cut them off from God and I've known gay men who are bordering sainthood.



I like the way the Methodists deal with it - they allow gay members to form communions and coalitions and to continue offering up their message as something the receive from the spirit, something to be heard and reviewed over a long period of time within the church. But until evidence exists to the contrary, they do not fudge on teh fact that they traditionally count it as sin. That seems to me a sturdy bridge over the pit of allowing either no room for the Spirit or too much room for culture....>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"It's nice to see that people seem basically polite -- except that guy who called Amy 'pathetic'. "


I don't see why I politeness is commanded here. Anyway, I was pulling an all-nighter for a client, and in a bad mood.



But yeah, using this as a vehicle to reintroduce the Foley issue et al... It's... Well, it's something...>

D4P · 3 years ago

If the allegations prove true, Republicans will no doubt use this as evidence in support of their claim that gay marriage (and gay anything) is a serious threat to "our marriages and families," and that to combat the threat we need to vote for more people like, well, Haggard.>

D. · 3 years ago

I've been a Haggard-blaster for such a long time, you think I'd be one of the gloating finger-waggers this morning. I find, however, that all I feel is compassion for the man, which surprises me. If he is Gay, then how sad that he's felt the need to repress his own sexuality and publicly condemn those who are Gay so often in this community. If he's not Gay, and this is an election scam, then how sad that he's being raked through mud. And, how sad that being homosexual makes one the mud. If this teaches us anything about Christianity or human nature, it should teach us that the sins of excess (not sexuality) visit us all and darkness most comes to those who pretend it isn't there.


D.>

D4P · 3 years ago

If he's not Gay, and this is an election scam, then how sad that he's being raked through mud


If it's true, as has been reported, that Haggard admitted that "some" of the allegations are true, then it would not seem to be a scam.



BTW: It doesn't really make much sense for "some" but not all of the allegations to be true, does it? Is he saying that he only had sex or drugs with the guy, but not both?>

Mike Jones · 3 years ago

Pastor Ted Haggard on homosexuality:
">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/03/video-pastor-haggard-pre_n_33180.html>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

All he really says in that video is that it is that homosexuality is a sin because it's in the Bible. The footage then cuts to a seemingly unrelated joke.


He probably still thinks homosexuality is a sin, whether he committed homosexual acts or not. Can someone explain to me how this is front page national news? I had not really heard much about this guy until now.>

D4P · 3 years ago

If in fact, as Haggard has apparently acknowledged, "some" of the allegations are true, my guess is we have already seen or will seen some Clintonian fudging on the definition of words. For example: Haggard was asked in a TV interview if he "knows" Mike Jones. Haggard said "No." That is a different question from whether Haggard has (1) met, and/or (2) had sex with, Jones. It is clearly possible to meet someone, and to even have sex with them multiple times, but still not feel like you "know" them.


But that is also clearly not what the question was intended to ask. The question was intended to ask if Haggard had met Jones before, and if he knew who he was, not whether he personally "knows" him or not. When Haggard said that he did not know Jones, he gives himself an "out." He doesn't have to admit that he has met Jones (if in fact he has), and he can always maintain later that he was telling the truth, if in fact it is reasonable for him to believe that he doesn't "know" Jones.>

D4P · 3 years ago

Can someone explain to me how this is front page national news?


I think the president of the National Association of Evangelics stepping down for any potentially controversial reason is bound to be national news. Why wouldn't it be?>

Uriah_Fan · 3 years ago

WIKIPEDIA WAS ALTERED AND EDITED TODAY!!!!


Talk about the Gay Agenda.



How is that exposing people for the sin of homosexuality is supposed to drive us to accept homosexuality as a comfy little lifestyle choice?



Whatever Haggard did, nothing will change the inappropriateness of Gay life and culture and community in regards to Christian life.



Dirty politics does not make gay sex any more appealing and will never alter the Bible to accept the behavior.



Gays can "out" whomever they want to. It just keeps making them look more and more seedy.>

NightLad · 3 years ago

I am gay.


Far from what many people may believe, hearing about situations like this does not make me happy. In fact, far from it.



People like Ted Haggard, be they bi-sexual or closeted homosexuals, cast a very dark shadow on those of us who do not live our lives wrapped in lies and deceit. Perhaps men like Ted Haggard really felt that he had no alternative but to hide his true sexual orientation. None of us can really know.



I won t spare Ted Haggard any blame but I won t hold him solely accountable, either. The foundation of his faith must answer to its inherent homophobic, uneducated and ignorant views of homosexuality. They enforce self-hatred among the gay members of their flock; often leading to suicide, depression, or, as demonstrated by Ted Haggard, a pathetic attempt to live life as something they are not and never will be: straight. Eventually the lies begin to corrode the soul, and the walls come tumbling down.



Yes, Ted Haggard lived a lie. He expunged deceptions about himself to those who placed their trust in him. But is being gay worse than being one of the self-righteous judgmental flock who force such actions upon others on the unspoken threat of abandoning them? Just look at some of the "christian" replies posted here.



Sometimes I think that America is full of churches but VERY few Christians. >

Richard Dawkins · 3 years ago

Reverend Ted Haggard on evolution:
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmNjfpoRZpE>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Well the idea that he deserves forgiveness is a joke. he doesn't deserve forgiveness but I will give it to him anyway. He doesn't deserve grace and after everything he has done to gay people over the years he needs to go ask them for their forgiveness. I don't deserve forgiveness; none of us do.


he can't get a pass on treating gay people like second class citizens to advance a conservative politic. Sorry it just doesn't work that way. I don't think there is any scriptual defense against a gay religious or secular institution for marriage. We are talking about people's lives here.



For whatever reason you can think what they do in their bedrooms is gross, disgusting, whatever but then so what. It's not like heterosexuality is this holy and beautiful God given reality. It's just as broken as homosexuality. If you doubt that look at mercy sex or swinging, or the divorce rate...



If these allegations are true he needs to go the gay community first. He has spent years slandering the LGBTQ community. It's only fair considering his politics, sermons and activities have been used to hurt and destroy the self esteem and dignity of people.



I feel bad for his wife and kids they deserve better than this.



p>

badmash · 3 years ago

Well Amy might have been charitable in saying, "The idea of any finger-wagging, ... really holds no interest for me", but I won't be. If these allegations turn out to be ture, all I will have to say is, "Physician, heal thyself!">

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"Ted Haggard, a pathetic attempt to live life as something they are not and never will be: straight."


What if he is bi-sexual?>

NightLad · 3 years ago

NightLad: Ted Haggard, a pathetic attempt to live life as something they are not and never will be: straight.


Kevin S: What if he is bi-sexual?



Then he is attracted to both men and women in the intimate, emotional & physical sense that straight men can only feel for women, and gay men can only feel for other men. If he is bisexual and falls in love with a woman and marries her, it does not make him straight. However, being in that type of committed relationship, within the context of his religious beleifs, would mean that regardless of other attractions he may develop in the future (to men or women) he must remain faithful and monogamous to her. Just like if a straight man were to get married but then develop attractions to another woman.



Believe me, my heart goes out to his wife. I can t imagine the pain she must be going through



But this is exactly why I get frustrated when ignorant folks say, gays can marry a member of the opposite gender! My first question to them is, Would you want YOUR daughter to marry a gay man? Of course not, because this is what happens when people try to live these lies.>

Matt Newell-Ching · 3 years ago

This needs to be a teachable moment for the church. If the allegations turn out to be true - and I do mean IF - we need to turn this into an opportunity to stop the demonizing of homosexuals in the church. Haggard is a human, imperfect, and a child of God, just like all of us. If these allegations are true, then it seems safe to say that he - like countless people in the church - have been forced into the closet by a culture of misunderstanding, homophobia, and flat out incorrect interpretations of scripture.


In the coming months, we can anticipate that there will be 2 different directions evangelicals will head on this issue. The first direction - which we can expect form Focus and others - will hunker down on this and this and reinforce the belief that homosexuality is as much of a sin as it ever was. But maybe - just maybe - there might emerge a wing that can talk about this openly, and have an honest dialogue about the struggles of homosexuals in the church.



Friends at Sojourners, it's time to be prophetic. Lead the way on building understanding on this issue. If we envision a day when the church does not demonize our brothers and sisters for being gay, then we must act to make that happen. And if this isn't a teachable moment, I don't know what will be.



peace, m



PS - Miss all of you!>

Payshun · 3 years ago

I agree w/ nightlad on that.


p>

Lance · 3 years ago

My bet is..the way this will play out....(if the allegations turn out to be true) is the conservatives will rationalise it by saying 'this is why we need to fight the 'homosexual agenda' because it is such an evil lure, even for a 'godly' man like Ted Haggard.


The same way the conservative response played out in the Lonnie Latham incident.



Do not under-estimate the rigidity of the conservative mindset.>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

rh,


"This will have a political ripple no doubt, but it is not primarily about politics."



Absolutely and demonstrably FALSE. Please note the connection between the 'religious' groups (not just Haggard's but 'Let's Focus on YOUR Family', AFA, etc.) who have made it their life's work to politicize their stance against the equal treatment of gay Americans, as in, say, a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

kevin s,


"All he really says in that video is that it is that homosexuality is a sin because it's in the Bible."



Wrong. He says homosexual activity is a sin.



"The footage then cuts to a seemingly unrelated joke."



Not so "unrelated" at all. It's an ironic (now, anyway) twist on the old religious blackmail scheme: "I think I know what you did last night, and if you send me a $1,000.00, I won't tell your wife about it."



The addendum at the end is all too revealing, even if it is tongue in cheek: (aside to the cameraperson) "If you use any of this [footage] I'll sue you."



At least it was less Swaggartian than "If a man so much as looked at me 'funny', I'd kill him and tell God he died."



"He probably still thinks homosexuality is a sin, whether he committed homosexual acts or not."



The issue is HYPOCRISY, kevin.



"Can someone explain to me how this is front page national news?"



Sure. Easy. it's BECAUSE THE 'RELIGIOUS' 'RIGHT' HAS MADE THE TREATMENT OF GAY AMERICANS FRONT PAGE NATIONAL NEEWS FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS.



The issue is HYPOCRISY, kevin.



Thanks for asking.



"I had not really heard much about this guy until now."



Shows how much you know about how the RRR has affected the rel lives of gay Americans then, kevin. Read more newspapers.>

D4P · 3 years ago

the conservatives will rationalise it by saying 'this is why we need to fight the 'homosexual agenda'


Lance - See my post at 11:31



The Religious Right likes to preach "individual responsibility" when it comes to issues like abortion, AIDS, drugs, poverty, etc. But when they get caught in sin or making a mistake, it's not uncommon for the individual responsiblity message to vanish and for them to shift the blame elsewhere (e.g. Democrats, liberals, gays, etc.)>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

Uriah (rhymes with ...),


"WIKIPEDIA WAS ALTERED AND EDITED TODAY!!!!



Talk about the Gay Agenda."



Nope. Talk about hypocrisy of the 'religous right'. Talk about news that affects real live Americans.



"How is that exposing people for the sin of homosexuality"



Actually, Haggard is being exposed for the sin of hypocrisy.



"is supposed to drive us to accept homosexuality as a comfy little lifestyle choice?"



Well of course, it isn't. Being gay is neither a "lifestyle" as you so constantly and so charitably (not) put it. Not is it a "choice". But thanx 4 tryin'.



"Whatever Haggard did, nothing will change the inappropriateness of Gay life and culture and community in regards to Christian life."



What WILL change is that people won't be so swift(boat) to adulate false prophets, to blindly follow what they preach when they clearly don't follow it.



"Dirty politics does not make gay sex any more appealing"



Then maybe you "christians' should stop practising dirty politics. Besides, if one is a heterosexual, how on earth could one find homosexuality "appealing"??? Curous minds wanna know.



"Gays can "out" whomever they want to. It just keeps making them look more and more seedy."



"Christians" can lie and lie about gay people too. It just keeps making them look more and more un-Christian.



Bearing false witness about one's gay and lesbian neigbours is just as big a sin.>

justintime · 3 years ago

Since no one else has brought this up yet, I think it's my responsibility to say it.


It was all Bill Clinton's fault.

.>

badmash · 3 years ago

Justin, thanks for bringing some clarity to the discussion. I don't know how we missed it until now - it is Bill Clinton's fault.


... or maybe the baseline is wrong again.>

D4P · 3 years ago

A few more things from CNN:


"There has been some admission of indiscretion, not an admission to all of the material that has been discussed, but there is an admission of some guilt,"



The man who made the allegations took a polygraph test that suggested some "deception."



Both of these seem to suggest that part of the allegations are true and part are false. Like I said before, that's kinda strange.>

Daniel · 3 years ago

NightLad,


Earlier, I posted this sentence:



Liberals will see it as the intrusion of the repressed self on the idealized self and, instead of practicing empathy and connection will start castigating conservatives as usual.



[I am a liberal, this sentence was supposed to be self-reflexive for me.]



The part about Ted Haggard living a lie and denying his true self that you posted is the first part. That part, I believe, is factually correct. It's that contradiction between the fundamentalist premises that we are all totally depraved and that we can be expected to act perfectly against our natures. It creates barriers of great pain and guilt, I think.



But I was worried when I typed out the above sentence that we start usnig this fact to beat conservatives and fundamentalists about the head. Rather, I would like us to merely offer Ted Haggard our prayers and wishes for healing and offer him the space to examine his thoughts on homosexuality. And to his family, sympathy for the struggle caused by his self-denial.



Perhaps this will be a time for talking about how we are to interpret the commandments of Paul and Moses and what Jesus' fulfilling of the Law really means. As Matt newell-Ching posted above, perhaps this will be a teachable moment for some people on either side of the issue to enter into and examine the experience of the other side.>

Claire McKeever · 3 years ago

Thank you to Matt Ching for leaving the comment you did just now. Your words are not only eloquent, but true. Haggard is indeed a child of God, and I hope we all remember this during this time. For, it is not a time to sneer at those crazy Religious Right-wingers who oppose gay marriage, and it is not a time to get excited about calling out others' mistakes. Rather, it is a time to teach (as Matt said) and love and forgive. Jesus did it all the time. So I hope, too, that Sojourners will be the leading voice on this ample opportunity to show acceptance and love to all. And, if you need a reminder or inspiration on how to do this, take lead from Nelson Mandella. Peace.>

Claire McKeever · 3 years ago

Here's the article, I was trying to link about Nelson Mandella.


">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/01/AR2006110100851.html?nav=hcmodule>

Claire McKeever · 3 years ago

Oh, and I misspella Mandela. Sorry about that.>

justintime · 3 years ago

D4P, The polygraph expert qualified the results by noting that Mike Jones was stressed out when he took the test.
He recommended that Jones take the test again later for accurate results.

.>

D4P · 3 years ago

This just in:


The Rev. Ted Haggard admits he purchased methamphetamine from Mike Jones, the man who accuses Haggard of paying him for sex, but the pastor says he threw away the drugs.>

D4P · 3 years ago

Rev. Ted Haggard, who resigned as one of the nation's top evangelical leaders, admitted Friday he had contacted male prostitute Mike Jones "for a massage" and bought drugs from him. Haggard said he never had sex with Jones and never used the methamphetamine drug he bought.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Ok but what about the damage he caused to the LGBTQ community? He has railed against them for years and I am sorry i can't ignore that just because he may have gotten caught w/ his pants down.


I have been a counselor for nearly every type of sexual brokeness out there and I think he needs some severe counselling, love and support but he also needs to apologize to the gay community.



p>

Eric · 3 years ago

Maybe I'm out of touch, but I consider myself a conservative evangelical Christian and I've never heard of this Haggard guy. I'm well read, pay attention to the news, and pretty knowledgeable about what goes on in the Christian community. From where I'm sitting I can't see it having much affect on anyone outside his church and community.>

justintime · 3 years ago

Payshun, Maybe some day he will reach a stage in his recovery from hypocrisy where he can apologize to the gay community.
But for the moment, he's stuck in the denial stage.>

D4P · 3 years ago

I've never heard of this Haggard guy


While that may be true, consider the following:



"Time magazine named Haggard as one of 2005's 25 most influential evangelical leaders and has close ties with the White House, participating in a regular conference call with other religious leaders.">

jessie · 3 years ago

Of course, the "crazy, religious right-wingers" who oppose gay marriage are joined by a strong majority of black and hispanic communities and a majority of the world. If, for argument's sake, over 60% of the world opposed gay marriage (a conservative number), what are the chances that one of them would be involved in a sexual sin?


The standard liberal cry is that "conservatives sin, so they should shut up about morals". But everyone sins, so should we never say anything is wrong? Do you see how ridiculous this is?



Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.>

justintime · 3 years ago

Eric, If you've never heard of Ted Haggard, maybe you've heard of James Dobson.
They're neighbors in Colorado Springs.

For more about Ted Haggard, read the May 2005 Harper's Magazine article, "Soldiers of Christ".

http://www.harpers.org/SoldiersOfChrist-20061103288348488.html

.>

badmash · 3 years ago

So his defense is the ol' "I didnt inhale". We all know how much stock the Republicans put in that defense during a previous administration.


Keep spinning - let's see how far this yarn goes...>

D4P · 3 years ago

"I didnt inhale"


A classic defense, to be sure.



As to the other allegations, we'll have to wait and see if Jones has any semen-stained fitted polos or flat-front chinos in his closet...>

SkipChurch · 3 years ago

Now that there's a crowd of pretty well informed folks as well as some Christians...oh, that came out all wrong... let me start over.


Here's a question I've always want answered by folks well-informed about Christian doctrine in matters sexual.



Okay.

Now-- homosexual activity is a sin, according to many Christians.



Are there consensual sex acts between married heterosexuals that would be sinful?



Not to lower the tone of beliefnet...but if there are, what are they?



If there a list somewhere?>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Justintime,


I know and that makes him a bigger hypocrit than I would like him to be. If he owns up to his stances against homosexuality and just said I am sorry for hurting these groups I would be ok. But for now, it's hard to show him more grace because he won't own up to the damage he's done.



No I think conservaties should shut up about sex. If you don't walk the walk and examine your own sexuality and are not brutally honest about it then you are a hypocrit and you can't lecture anyone about what they should be doing.



Murder and other things are separate issues. Sex is the old puratanical standard by which we are failing.



p>

D4P · 3 years ago

Are there consensual sex acts between married heterosexuals that would be sinful?


There is no consensus on this. In general, the more "conservative" the Christian, the smaller their public list of "righteous" sexual acts. (Whether or not they abide by their own list is a separate question).>

Daniel · 3 years ago

Jessie,


I'd love to hear some of this kind of humility from Dobson, falwell, Robertson, or any of the people with microphones. Unfortunately, the message that comes loudest from that crowd is "I'm holier than you and you need a law so I can punish you for it." I imagine coming at this while remembering that we all fall prey to sins that we still believe are wrong would create a lot more common ground on conservative proposals - as it is I simply tune out after I hear "I'm holier than you...." The rest is like Charlie Brown's teacher, but with bursting veins and flying spittle.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Are there consensual sex acts between married heterosexuals that would be sinful?


Yes, think Mercy sex, Swinging, men fantazing about another woman while having sex... I could make a very long list but those are just small list of consensual sex acts that are sinful ie not honoring what God graces thru sex.



p>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"For, it is not a time to sneer at those crazy Religious Right-wingers who oppose gay marriage,"


Jim Wallis opposes gay marriage.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

So we should sneer at Jim? Look I support gay marriage but I understand why other Christians don't. I personally don't understand why this needs to be such a huge cultural issue when marriage is in shambles thanks to straights.


p>

badmash · 3 years ago

Jim Wallis opposes gay marriage


You mean you guys actually agree on something? ;)>

Jay · 3 years ago

I see Kevin S. has the noisy gong/clanging cymbal bases covered today. Were you this defensive of Bill Clinton's little indiscretion? "...explain to me how this is front page national news?" I thought not.


At least Mr. Clinton didn't have a long record of pontificating against and smearing the character of and denying civil rights to young female interns.



I didn't have the schadenfreude reaction to the Haggard story that I might have had a few years ago. It's just sad. No one wins. This is not good news to have this good man, gifted pastor and teacher, live a double life because of his internalized homophobia and self-loathing. We have this religious-political machine now and we practice denial just to advance a social conservative political agenda. We don't care who we hurt. "Hate the sin and love the sinner" has turned into a hollow vulgarity out of the mouths of these ersatz followers of Christ. No one I have heard say those words in the past 10 years has convinced me that they are sincere.>

Jay · 3 years ago

I like how Pat Robertson's little operation at CBN is leading this story:


"Haggard Accuser Fails Polygraph Test"



Yep, bury the lead in order to protect the brotherhood.>

Jen H · 3 years ago

After reading the news today I visited Haggard's church's website and listend to his sermon from last Sunday. The first prayer of the service was for "lies and deception to be exposed." In it he spoke about how if we "violate the wisdom and responsibility of our roles God will reject us, not pesonally, but in that role." He then added that, "he may reject us personally, depending on what we've done." (These are paraphrases, not exact quotes) I wonder if he thinks God is rejecting him personally because of this. No matter whether he's gay or not, a drug user or not, an adulterer or not God loves him and made him as he is. We are all sinners and we are all forgiven. I hope Christians on both the right and the left will recognize this and support him as a brother in Christ.>

Rich · 3 years ago

The head of TBN Paul Crouch was accused of an homosexual affair as well. Paul and Ted are supporters of one another as well. Where is the media on this?>

Barbara · 3 years ago

At first, I really did feel schadenfreude--"ha, yet another hypocrite from the conservative Evangelical side". Adultery is a big no-no. It being gay adultery was just icing on the cake.


However, as I've read further, I really began to just feel sorry for Mr. Haggard and those around him. Even if all he did was buy meth, not use it, and get a massage from a male prostitute, (huh? this is bizarre behavior even if it stopped right there)these are not the actions of a happy and mentally healthy man. If he did go further, which frankly I believe he did, again--why would someone with so much to lose act in such a reckless way? Because he has been living a lie to himself, he is deeply angry at himself, and he doesn't realize that God's love is great enough to survive all that we do to ourselves. And to those whom we love (his family, his friends, his followers).



I hope he comes to a point of peace where he realizes that God loves him, and that being true to God's love may just mean that he is a mentally healthy and happy homosexual man instead of a deeply angry and confused hetersexual man. And that at that point of realization, he can ask forgiveness for all those whom he has hurt, including the greater LGBT community, and work towards bringing peace and love for all of God's children back into his church.>

jessie · 3 years ago

Daniel,
I agree that those leaders have not always shown grace to liberals or to those caught in sin. I think it is unfortunate that Republicans play politics with gay marriage (though Dems give the issue political treatment, as well). To be honest, gay marriage is not even close to the top of my list of concerns. I think there is a case that can be made against gay marriage that is not based on malice towards homosexuals, though it takes a more nuanced approach than that traditionally taken by Falwell et al. (whose approach to just about anything I do not like).





For the others here...Christian leaders preach against adultery. Since some are caught in adultery, should they stop preaching against it?>

Daniel · 3 years ago

Jessie,


Well said. I have a liberal socialist friend who is anti-gay marriage. He doesn't see how liberals embrace Darwin so readily and then think that it is natural for two people who can't reproduce to commit to a relationship. Although, humans aren't the only animal that exhibits homosexuality....>

Anne Haines · 3 years ago

My reaction, needless to say assuming that it's true which is as yet unproven: Along with the Bakker and Swaggert affairs, this illustrates a certain mindset. As well as I can understand it, this mindset presumes that a person can sin and repent and receive forgiveness even though he or she may have no intention of changing his or her behavior: i.e., God will forgive him next time too. Or maybe he does intend to change, but is repenting and shedding tears mostly because the sin has been exposed. This may not even be a consciously held view, and it is surely not always be reflected in their preaching. Some of the comments (by no means all) seem to reflect such a view. And no, I don't believe it makes any difference whether it was gay or straight. Adultery is adultery. What does make a difference is that it is committed by a person of such widespread authority and influence. But I say all this recognizing myself as a sinner in need of forgiveness.>

Bill Samuel · 3 years ago

Ted Haggard is a very prominent religious public figure, so this is legitimately a major news story. And I do believe if the allegation was about activity with a female rather than a male prostitute, it still would have been big news. And buying illegal drugs and going to someone who is not a therapist, but a prostitute, for a massage would raise questions even if he never actually had sex with that person.


Clearly he is a troubled person, and he needs to be in our prayers. He has been involved in moving the evangelical establishment to care about other public issues than the the stereotypical ones. So aside from his indiscretions, he's done some good things as well as some things I would disagree with.



I do think prominent church figures, and for that matter your ordinary pastor to a lesser extent, do have some real pressures on them of the type most of the rest of us do not and usually do not have the kind of spiritual support and accountability needed. That, IMHO, is a serious issue for the church.>

Matt Channing · 3 years ago

"...blow a lot of Evangelical minds...?"


Forgive me for overgeneralizing, but judging by the Evangelicals I know, that doesn't sound too hard...



Evangelicals fell for it when the Republican party pretended to care about what they thought, exploiting their fears and beliefs in order to get their votes.



They have willingly done the Republicans' dirty work, stumping for legistlation that is designed to do nothing but relegate another group to the status of second class citizens. Disapproving of the lifestyles and practices of others is one thing. Doing so when they have no bearing on you personally is another.



But to actively make those people suffer because you disapprove is sub-mental.



They have actively supported the wholesale slaughter of a nation half a world away, justified by a fictional pretext, because they believe that since the President is "one of them", that God is on his side and he therefore cannot possibly do anything wrong or have ulterior motives.



To continue to support policies based on pretexts that have been proven false is brainless. Doing so because you believe the man in charge is "a good man" is to have willfully submitted to a lobotomy.





Forgive me, but trusting the Republicans strikes me as gullible, and willingly doing their bidding, convinced one is doing God's work strikes me as doubly so. Continuing both with the full knowledge of what the consequences have been for others is not gullible, just heedless, uncompassionate and idiotic.



In the past twenty years, Evangelicals have allowed themselves to be convinced that Christianity is in danger of vanishing, despite the emergence of mega-churches whose congregations number in the thousands of members, and despite the innumerable polls where 80% of those surveyed identified themselves as Christians.



A religion cannot both vanish and comprise 80% of anything. yet the Evangelical mindset allows a believer to boast of one and live in fear of the other.



Any group of people capable of believing they are in danger of becoming extinct even when the cold hard facts suggest otherwise are a group ripe for fleecing. In fact, they might even deserve it.



Looking at the way the Evanglical community as a whole has conducted itself over the past three decades, it would be easy to conclude that it is a group of people incapable of thinking critically.



Colonizing Evangelical minds was a cinch. Blowing them shouldn't be that much more difficult.>

Tenoch · 3 years ago

Some folks got it right: BLAME CLINTON! If Clinton hadn't had oral sex and therefore destroyed America as we know it, fundamentalist evangelicals like Haggard wouldn't be steeped in such blatant hypocrisy!


And when BLAMING CLINTON gets old, fundies can fall back on swift-boating decorated war heroes like Senator John Kerry, denigrating the disabled like Michael J. Fox, or demonizing journalists for reporting facts. Just like Jesus used to do!>

justintime · 3 years ago

To those of you from the Christian right who offer their sympathy for Pastor Ted Haggard in his tribulation:


What did you say to others about Bill Clinton's sad affair with Monica Lewinsky?



Did you think Clinton deserved any spiritual support from the nation for his tribulation?



Do you think Clinton deserves the ridicule and hatred he still receives from the Christian right?



Do you think Bill Clinton ever did anything good for America?

.>

badmash · 3 years ago

Matt - thank you for a very perspicacious assessment of the GOP-Evangelical relationship!>

D4P · 3 years ago

I personally don't understand why this needs to be such a huge cultural issue when marriage is in shambles thanks to straights


Gay marriage is a "huge cultural issue" primarily because it wins votes for Republicans. They may claim that gay marriage is wrong and that its wrongness is why they campaign against it, but I don't see too many millionaire Republicans campaigning against greed (which is also presumably "wrong"...)>

D4P · 3 years ago

Evangelicals have allowed themselves to be convinced that Christianity is in danger of vanishing, despite the emergence of mega-churches whose congregations number in the thousands of members, and despite the innumerable polls where 80% of those surveyed identified themselves as Christians


I've noticed this too. Their approach seems two-pronged, with two seemingly conflicting prongs.



1. On one hand, we're supposed to believe that the US is a "Christian" nation, that the "moral majority" agrees with the Republican platform, and that liberals, Democrats, secularists, etc. are a small minority.

2. On the other hand, we're supposed to believe that liberals, etc. are taking over and pose a serious threat to "our way of life," and as such the only way to counter their takeover is to vote Republican.>

James Dobson · 3 years ago

All of us at Focus on the Family are heartsick over the allegation, not yet confirmed, that Ted has had a private life with a homosexual for several years. We will await the outcome of this story, but the possibility that an illicit relationship has occurred is alarming to us and to millions of others.


Ted has been my close friend and colleague for many years. He has been used mightily to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Colorado Springs and around the world. He will continue to be my friend, even if the worst allegations prove accurate. Nevertheless, sexual sin, whether homosexual or heterosexual, has serious consequences, and we are extremely concerned for Ted, his family and his church.



We ask that the Focus on the Family constituency and Christians everywhere pray for Ted and his loved ones. Our hearts go out to all of them. Perhaps the allegations are false and the circumstances are not as we have heard. Either way, the situation has grave implications for the Cause of Christ, and we ask for the Lord s guidance and blessings in the days ahead.

.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

I am not sure what to say. People don't go to gay massage therapists for just massage. A person does not go to an Asian massage parlor for just a massage.


I am not sure he had sex but maybe just engaged in some mutual masterbation. Either way this shows how destructive lying to oneself is.



I don't feel sorry for him. I can't. I feel sorry for his wife, his kids, his congregation and those around him. But he chose his bed and now he has to lie in it.



That doesn't mean I would not befriend or ignore his serious need for counselling but he made a series of choices and now he has to face the consequences of them. He should not get a pass on that. None of us should.



p>

D4P · 3 years ago

I guess I missed the following memo back in the late 90s:


All of us at Focus on the Family are heartsick over the allegation, not yet confirmed, that Bill has had a private life with an intern for several months. We will await the outcome of this story, but the possibility that an illicit relationship has occurred is alarming to us and to millions of others.



We ask that the Focus on the Family constituency and Christians everywhere pray for Bill and his loved ones. Our hearts go out to all of them. Perhaps the allegations are false and the circumstances are not as we have heard. Either way, the situation has grave implications for the Cause of Christ, and we ask for the Lord s guidance and blessings in the days ahead.>

Anonymous · 3 years ago

If the allegations are true, the timing of Mr. Haggard becoming President of the NAE coincided with this relationship with Mr. Jones. I just heard a sermon today on "with elevation comes a test." The devil is 'enroaching upon us as a hungry lion seeking whom he can devour' 1 Peter 5:8. We have to be so careful throughout our Christian walk.


I think that when Mr. Haggard went to Colorado to start his church and came upon opposition from the community of people who were practicing witchcraft when he and his wife started praying against demonic spirits in the area. Those were tough days for him. He discovered what spiritual warfare was in a way that many Christians do not experience.



I pray that we as Christians will not judge him, but pray for him. As David said when asked who he wanted to judge him, God or man, he chose God because God has mercy. Mr. Haggard will have lots of healing to do. This is just the beginning.>

justintime · 3 years ago

James Dobson, "Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the earth."


Dobson believes gays can be "cured" by reparative therapy counseling.

Previous methods of electroshock treatments and inducing nausea while viewing pornographic materials have been abandoned.



Maybe Dobson can recommend a treatment center for Haggard.

.>

justintime · 3 years ago

Similar scandals have plagued the ex-gay movement. John Paulk, a prominent ex-gay spokesperson who worked for Focus on the Family was featured in a national ad campaign attesting to "coming out of homosexuality." At ex-gay conferences he claimed ex-gays must "continue to speak out boldly against the radical homosexual agenda while we minister to those who are trapped in the lifestyle."


In September of 2001, two men who worked for the Human Rights Campaign recognized John Paulk in a gay bar in Washington DC called Mr P's. Paulk initially tried to flee, then he denied that he knew it was a gay bar, protesting that he was only looking for a place to use the bathroom. Paulk maintained that even his decision to enter the bar couldn't be blamed on his own volition. Satan had been working in his life, he said, and gay activists were calling and threatening to ruin him. This is what drew him into the bar.

.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Spiritual warfare huh?


As a mystic and contemplative I could tell you stories but for the sake of keeping that out of this discussion I will leave it alone.



I can't speak to what drove him to seek out a gay male massage therapist knowing they are prostitute. No actually I can.



Sexual repression and the pain of living a double life drove him to make a some poor decisions. Satan did not make him do and neither did the pressures of his congregation even though that may have led a role in driving him further.



He was seeking to self destruct to stop the pain of fighting something he could not change and instead of dealing w/ that and letting God heal him from condemnation, fear and shame he chose to act out.



He says he passed the test by throwing the drugs away. No he failed by buying them and getting this "massage" in the first place.



Oh and I will pray for him but I will pray far harder for his family and congregation and the gay men and women he's hurt over the years. W/ his sermons he may have helped a person choose suicide or acting out in a destructive way.



That's not good and he will have a lot answer for in the coming months, years and eternity.



p>

Gordon · 3 years ago

I don't believe Bill Clinton didn't inhale, and I have my doubts about Haggard's statement as well.>

justintime · 3 years ago

Gordon, Did you believe there were WMD's in Iraq?
.>

Gordon · 3 years ago

Justin -


Since it's Friday, I don'yt belive there were any WMDs other than a certain amount of obsolete chemical weaponry. Ask me again on Monday.>

justintime · 3 years ago

I'm encouraged by your open mind, Gordon.
.>

Gordon · 3 years ago

I wouldn't so much characterize it as open-mindedness. I think the evidence is a bit equivocal, and in such cases I reserve a final judgement until there is enough evidence to convince me.>

Mike Hayes 2 · 3 years ago

"...I'd love to hear some of this kind of humility from Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, or any of the people with microphones. Unfortunately, the message that comes loudest from that crowd is "I'm holier than you and you need a law so I can punish you for it."


I imagine coming at this while remembering that we all fall prey to sins that we still believe are wrong would create a lot more common ground on conservative proposals - as it is I simply tune out after I hear "I'm holier than you...." The rest is like Charlie Brown's teacher, but with bursting veins and flying spittle...".



Daniel,



Thank you for this insight.



May Ted Haggard and his family and his church find peace. May all persons who find themselves rejected by our society because they are "different" find peace.>

Wolverine · 3 years ago

justintime wrote:


To those of you from the Christian right who offer their sympathy for Pastor Ted Haggard in his tribulation:



What did you say to others about Bill Clinton's sad affair with Monica Lewinsky?



The main objection to Clinton's affair wasn't the affair itself, but his decision to commit perjury about it in the Paula Jones sexual harassment trial.



Did you think Clinton deserved any spiritual support from the nation for his tribulation?



Yes, but that's not the same as saying there should not have been political consequences.



Do you think Clinton deserves the ridicule and hatred he still receives from the Christian right?



I can't speak for the whole Christian Right, but I never hated the guy. I just wasn't partiuclarly impressed with him as a President.



Do you think Bill Clinton ever did anything good for America?/i>



Clinton was good on trade issues. He opposed the welfare reform law initially, but he did eventually sign the thing. I remember he stuck up for the President after Hurricane Katrina hit, which was a noble thing to do.



Wolverine>

D4P · 3 years ago

The main objection to Clinton's affair wasn't the affair itself, but his decision to commit perjury about it in the Paula Jones sexual harassment trial.


I don't buy that for one second. If you're speaking for yourself, that's one thing. But the outrage over Clinton's affair was about the affair, not the "perjury." Granted, the impeachment etc. had to be based on lying under oath, but I can guarantee you that conservative Christians were more upset about the President of the United States having sex in the Oval Office with someone that wasn't his wife than they were with him lying about it.>

justintime · 3 years ago

Wolverine, Yes, but that's not the same as saying there should not have been political consequences.


The political consequences were that Congress was practically shut down for months while adulterous Republican hypocrites tried to drive our president, Bill Clinton, out of office.



The economic consequences were Ken Starr spending $70 million of the taxpayers money on a fishing trip that yielded no indictments.



Do you think these political consequences were appropriate?



Do you think the House Dems should investigate corruption and malfeasance in the Bush administration?



I hope they don't impeach Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, because that would tie up Congress at a critical time when we need to sort out the mess Bush got us into.

My hope is that Bush will do the right thing for America and resign.

.>

Mike Jones · 3 years ago

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/03/video-of-male-prostitute_n_33204.html
.>

Wendy Garcia · 3 years ago

I've never even heard of Haggard until yesterday. I like the way the liberals react,"See! We told you that anybody who criticizes homosexuals is actually a homosexual themselves! Here's the proof!"
Silly and stupid.

Sort of like "anybody who criticizes murderers is actually a murderer."

The Haggard thing will have no influence on anything, let alone the election. Why would it?>

NEWS9 · 3 years ago

You're an evangelical and you never heard of Pastor Ted Haggard?
Why would you?

He's only the president of the National Evangelical Association.

And he talks to Bush every Monday morning.

Well, probably not this Monday.

Right, no influence on anything.

Let alone the election.

Not to worry.

.>

D4P · 3 years ago

Should it concern us that the president is routinely taking advice from people most of us have never even heard of, much less elected? That seems to remove the president from accountability to the electorate. It seems very undemocratic to me...>

justintime · 3 years ago

Dobson and Haggard were the evangelical advisors to the Bush junta.
They had a direct line into the White House.

Yes, I think it should concern us.

Do you think they had anything to do with Karl Rove's divisive political strategies.

I wouldn't be surprised if they cooked up the gay marriage amendment together.

And what about the Terri Schaivo episode?

.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

Were you this defensive of Bill Clinton's little indiscretion? "


Was Sojourner's this indignant about Ted Haggard's. Clinton, you'll recall, was President of the United States at the time. I had not heard of Haggard until today.



"At least Mr. Clinton didn't have a long record of pontificating against and smearing the character of and denying civil rights to young female interns."



He signed the Defense of Marriage Act did he not?



"No one I have heard say those words in the past 10 years has convinced me that they are sincere."



Well, I agree that it is an overused cliche. However, I know plenty of people who despise sin who recognize that we are all sinners.



If there are no winners and losers, and this is just a sad story (I agree with you, btw) then how do you explain Ms. Sullivan's reaction of barely contained giddiness.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"Forgive me for overgeneralizing, but judging by the Evangelicals I know, that doesn't sound too hard..."


When you make a statement such as this, it is best to follow it with a cogent, intelligent, compelling idea, lest the statement be rendered ironic.



You failed.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"To those of you from the Christian right who offer their sympathy for Pastor Ted Haggard in his tribulation:"


I am offering none. He should have come clean years ago. Now his family and his church are being dragged through the mud. To be forgiven, he must repent.



"What did you say to others about Bill Clinton's sad affair with Monica Lewinsky?"



He should have come clean years ago. Now his family and our country are being dragged through the mud. To be forgiven, he must repent.



"Did you think Clinton deserved any spiritual support from the nation for his tribulation?"



Perhaps. I would note that all you are really doing is saying that you and your opponents are on equal footing, assuming you were defensive of Clinton during that time.



"Do you think Clinton deserves the ridicule and hatred he still receives from the Christian right?"



Yes, though I wouldn't call it hatred.



"Do you think Bill Clinton ever did anything good for America?"



Yes.>

Don Costello · 3 years ago

No Amy, a Christian should not change his or her mind about any sin just because someone they know is caught in that sin. That is puting personal circumstances above the word and will of God.If every preacher and every Christian in the world turned out to be in bondage to same sex lust, the Bible still condemns it as wrong.
Don Costello>

Janet · 3 years ago

As a former member of the evangelical church I am sadly not surprised at all by the actions of Mr. Haggard or by the response to his actions.


I found many good things in the evangelical church for which I am thankful, but I also found an enormous pressure - sometimes spoken, other times not, in regards to all areas of my life. I admit there were many times in my quest for true shalom I settled for a "false" sense of what I believed to be just that.



Instead of being taught how to think I was taught what to think.



I learned that how I looked, what income level I was, how clean my house was, how well behaved my children were, how fancy my scrapbooks were (I m a woman if you haven t already guessed) how nicely decorated my home was, whether or not my children were home schooled or in Christian school etc is what determined how spiritual I was.



All this to say that I think some of the tragedy in this story lies in the enormous pressure the evangelical church puts on its constituents to look, act and think a certain way. Am I shocked that Pastor Haggard would look elsewhere then his church or to God Him/Herself to seek true peace and wholeness? Sadly, no.



I watched an interview with Pastor Haggard on the news as he sat in his car trying to say anything he could to change his image, perception etc. I watched his wife next to him not saying a word while inside she must be aching. I believe that like so many other humans the pride issue and fear of being accepted for who we really are is so great that it becomes easy to believe our own lies. We are afraid to admit to other who were created to be as well as any of our short-comings.



Ironically I don t believe God sees any of us in the ways in which we see ourselves or others thankfully. But because the evangelical church has been so quick to cast the first stone I think it is no surprise that the rest of the world seems to enjoy pointing out when one of us messes up. The evangelical church has certainly enjoyed pointing out any of the shortcomings of those we don t agree with.



There are many exceptions to this kind of person(s) in the evangelical church but it seems that so many of the ones who guide us put such unrealistic expectations and pressure on us while masking it in spirituality .



I will pray for Pastor Haggard and his family just as I did for President Clinton and his. I will also pray for the evangelical church that maybe some of the Pharisees will begin to understand why Jesus hung out with who he did. I will pray for all of us that we might find the shalom we seek.>

Matt Channing · 3 years ago

"Forgive me for overgeneralizing, but judging by the Evangelicals I know, that doesn't sound too hard..."


When you make a statement such as this, it is best to follow it with a cogent, intelligent, compelling idea, lest the statement be rendered ironic.



You failed.



*******************************************



Did I, Kevin?



Or is it that you just disagree with me?



How did I fail?



I merely pointed out that any group of people that:



1. Can believe simultaneously that it is in danger of vanishing yet can also boast a national membership in the millions



2. Supports the policies of a man who has obviously lied to them and everyone else simply because he claims the same faith



3. Gives its money to a political party whose principles run so counter to its professed religious beliefs as to be diametriclally opposed to them



4. Would use political power to hurt people who really pose no danger to it



is not a group that impresses me as being gifted with a great deal of intellectual heft.



Therefore "blowing their minds", to paraphrase Amy, does not strike me as a terribly staggering achievement.



Evangelical minds were so easily co-opted by the Republican party, that it seems to me that any other activity involving Evangelical minds would constitute a similar non-challenge.



I have made some very cogent, and intelligent points that do indeed support my original thesis.



Twice.



Whether you agree with me or not is another matter.>

Pacific231 · 3 years ago

Ted Haggard, meet Roy Cohn.


Roy Cohn, meet Ted Haggard.>

Timbo Twiddly · 3 years ago

New admission from Haggard:


Now Art, I mean Ted, says "Ok, I had sex but I didn't swallow".>

justintime · 3 years ago

Janet, thanks for your thoughtful post.
.>

justintime · 3 years ago

...any group of people that:


1. Can believe simultaneously that it is in danger of vanishing yet can also boast a national membership in the millions



2. Supports the policies of a man who has obviously lied to them and everyone else simply because he claims the same faith



3. Gives its money to a political party whose principles run so counter to its professed religious beliefs as to be diametriclally opposed to them



4. Would use political power to hurt people who really pose no danger to it



...is not a group that impresses me as being gifted with a great deal of intellectual heft.



I think you made some good points there, Matt.

.>

justintime · 3 years ago

Kevin says: "He [Bill Clinton] should have come clean years ago. Now his family and our country are being dragged through the mud. To be forgiven, he must repent."


I think he did come clean and repent.

Weren't you watching when he did this on television years ago?

Kevin, you should give up using Bill Clinton as a distraction from and excuse for Republican corruption and incompetence in government.

.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"Did I, Kevin?


Or is it that you just disagree with me?



How did I fail?"



I disagree with you that evangelicals are as stupid and gullible as you say. Since you made a sweeping remark about the intelligence of Christians, I thought you might bring some intellectual guns to the table. Instead, you offer a long-winded analysis that boils down to "they're stupid because they disagree with me."



But, for the record, I and many evangelicals disagree that Bush lied us into war, that governmental social programs offer the best way to aid the poor, and that the prohibition of gay marriage (which is what I think you mean by "hurting people") actually hurts people.



You don't understand the political leanings of Christian conservatives, so you make wholesale generalizations, which, while clearly reinforcing your worldview, are inaccurate. Then, you proclaim that we lack intellectual heft.>

Cynthia · 3 years ago

Ted Haggard is like man with a self-loathing feature that he's tried to hide by wrapping bandages around it. He's made himself sick by keeping it wrapped up tight, causing a wound where none existed while judging others with the same feature. God ripped off the bandages (ouch) to expose the now oozing wound so it can be healed.
To take this analogy to the extreme (sorry), many people are recoiling at the sight of this wound. It's a normal reaction. It's ugly and it stinks.

It's not the man's homosexuality that stinks, it's his attempt at concealment and his self-imposed shame about his "condition" that made it fester.

It's hard not to join the schadenfreude choir. But as a healer I have compassion for this man. He is seriously wounded and needs treatment.

This is an opportunity to reveal God's Grace to the world--not Grace for Ted Haggard only, but for all of us who "come short of the Glory of God." There's Restoration for Ted, and Redemption for all.>

jessie · 3 years ago

Matt,
You make claims rather than present facts. With the exception of the first (which has no basis in reality), these claims may be supported by some pieces of evidence, but they are also refuted by others. You're actually just calling people names rather than making any coherent arguments.



Where do evangelicals talk about "vanishing"? I have really never heard about this, and being an evangelical, you'd think I would have at least heard someone talk about it. Many evangelicals have expressed concern about religious liberties being infringed upon, but this is very different from "vanishing" and these concerns are not unfounded.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Kevin,


So you don't think the prohibition on gay marriage actually doesn't hurt gay people?



Back that one up please. Because I can tell you from hanging out w/ my gay friends and others that they not only feel hurt but have to jump thru hurtles that you or I don't because of who I choose to be w/.



p>

Payshun · 3 years ago

and also it doesn't matter if Bill Clinton repents or not. You must still forgive or have you forgotten the Lord's prayer.


p>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Just waking up and so my question came out wrong.


Let me try this again.



Kevin,



Do you think that the prophibition on gay marriage doesn't hurt gay people?



p>

D4P · 3 years ago

Doesn't Apostle Paul say it's better not to marry? Perhaps all marriage should be banned...>

James Hukari · 3 years ago

The Bible says, "Pride comes before the fall." I don't think we need say more.>

justintime · 3 years ago

You could say the same about our one party government.
I hope we turn our hubris into humility before America falls.

The planet needs America.>

Matt Channing · 3 years ago

A country that consumes more natural resources per capita than any other on Earth?


A country that regulary interferes with the sovreignty of other nations for no other reason than to cater to its big business interests?



A country that refuses to work with others in the apprehension of terrorists, acknowledging the climate crisis or reducing poverty?



Yeah, the world needs America like rock and roll needs Dan Fogleberg...>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Amen matt.


p>

justintime · 3 years ago

America needs massive self analysis.
.>

Matt Channing · 3 years ago

True that, Justintime!


It also needs to get on the treadmill, learn a musical instrument, read a couple of books now and again, and stop its obsession with what the folks next door are doing in the privacy of their own home.



It might even want to think about going camping, drinking some water, spending less time at Church and more time at the homeless shelter.



When abroad, it might spend less time complaining it can't get a decent hamburger and more time learning how to eat whatever the natives are having. It might also spend less time calling the natives foreigners.



It might take a minute to consider how it's actions affecting its relationship with others short-term will affect those same relationships long term.



It might also consider turning off the TV. Permanently.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Leave tv alone there's some good stuff on it. LOL But I agree but I honestly think America needs a drink or two to loosen it up a little bit. This puritan streak is way past dead.


p>

dale shipley · 3 years ago

What's the big deal? Pastor Ted was just loving his neighbor and his neighbor's meth.>

justintime · 3 years ago

"I honestly think America needs a drink or two to loosen it up a little bit. This puritan streak is way past dead."


Cheers!

.>

Matt Channing · 3 years ago

Right Arm, Payshun! Farm Out!


Crack a brewski, open a book (or click on the tv) and set about managing one's own life rather than trying to control those of one's neighbors.



I think if it were a cultural norm of Ted Haggard's world to live your life privately and allow others to do the same, all this hoopla over his alleged gayness would be nonexistent.



Imagine--



"Ted's gay!"



"Yeah, and I'm hungry. When's dinner?"



If Ted had spent less time telling other people how to live their sexual lives, and more time dealing with his own sexuality, there wouldn't be much of a story here.



But it's that puritanical insistance that everybody's business is yours that gets in the way.



To Kevin and all the other virulently anti-gay:



Think homosexuality is wrong?





Good for you! Bruce and Kyle will know who not to invite to their Christmas party.



In the meanwhile, stay out of their lives. If God disapproves, God will deal with them Himself, in His own way, and in His own good time.



It's between Bruce and Kyle and God. Not between Bruce, Kyle, God and you.



In the meanwhile, it might be best to focus on how God will deal with you when your time comes.



What do you think God will have to say about how hatefully you treated your neighbor, straight or gay?>

justintime · 3 years ago

Live and let live.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"To Kevin and all the other virulently anti-gay:"


I am virulently anti-gay now?



"Think homosexuality is wrong?"



Yes.



"It's between Bruce and Kyle and God. Not between Bruce, Kyle, God and you."



That true. I'm not for banning homosexuality. Who are Bruce and Kyle?>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Thanks Matt,


I am glad I am not the only one saying it. There is nothing wrong w/ being gay. There is nothing wrong w/ being straight in and of themselves. the problem comes in how we treat each other and ourselves.



p>

Gene Smart · 3 years ago

Who cares?>

D4P · 3 years ago

More on Haggard:


The Rev. Ted Haggard of Colorado had continued to fight abortion and acceptance of gay relationships in his three years as association president, recently championing a proposed ban on same-sex marriage on his home state's ballot. But he also prioritized anti-poverty work and environmental activism. The association recently started a project called "Re:Vision," meant to advance a "broad biblical agenda" that includes improving health care and ending racism.



One of Haggard's biggest leaps came when he said he believed global warming was occurring, and that preventing it should be an evangelical priority.



His position drew rebuke from some prominent evangelicals including James Dobson of Focus on the Family, leading Haggard to keep the association out of at least one religious environmental protection campaign this year.



"It created some disgruntlement among certain evangelicals who thought that any attention diverted away from abortion was moving in the wrong direction," said Corwin Smidt, a political scientist at Calvin College who researches evangelicals.



I guess this helps explain why so many conservatives around here hadn't heard of him. He sounds like a bit of a black sheep, what with the whole "protecting the environment" thing that so many conservatives apparently hate...>

Matt Channing · 3 years ago

Kev,


I'm painting a person I don't even know with a black brush.



My apologies.>

Matt Channing · 3 years ago

Kev-


"Bruce and Kyle" is my shorthand for any gay male couple. Don't ask me why. It's just two names I pulled out of my ear. It would probably be easier to just write "gay male couple"...



Payshun--



Whether there's anything wrong with being gay is not for anyone but God to say.



Some will argue He's said it. It's right there in the Bible.



Okay, fine. For the sake of discussion, let's just agree on that, if only temporarily.



However, when one considers it is nowhere to be found in the Decalogue (as adultery is), is not among the Seven Deadlies (as lust is), and is mentioned only about twelve times in the whole of the Bible (as apposed to the thousands of verses concerning poverty and other social issues), it might be worth wondering if there aren't sins that might be worse.



It certainly seems that considering how little print space is devoted to to the notion of homosexuality, when comparing it to other concerns, sins and vices that should be foremost on a believer's mind, that many Evangelicals spend way too much time worrying about it.



What do the Gospels have to say about homosexuality?



Anyone?



I don't recall any commentary from Jesus one way or another on the subject.



Am I wrong?



No fair invoking Paul's epistles. While part of the New Testament, they are not Gospels.



And last I checked, Paul wasn't the Son of God. Jesus is.



I'm not saying that Jesus didn't have a perspective on this issue. What I am saying is, when one considers what issues Jesus does focus on in the Gospels, that other ideas have greater priority.



I think Jesus was too busy healing the sick, feeding the poor, and giving hope to the hopeless that he didn't have a lot of time to think about sex, one way or the other.



There lies an important lesson in His example--there is a lot of work to be done! There are hungry people to feed, sick people to heal, the hopeless to console, and here we sit talking about sex...



Through His actions, we have our priorities outlined for us, and we sit around worrying about boys kissing....



Doesn't this make us look slightly obtuse?



I find it interesting that when He does broach the subjects of morality in sexuality and marriage, it has to do with the themes of fidelity, adultery and divorce.



So, with regard to Ted Haggard, let's forget the whole gay thing for a moment, and talk about how the President of the NAE was dunked for committing adultery.



Now, the Decalogue specifically says, "You will not commit adultery".

I think even the most liberal among us will concede that if there's a Commandment against it, it's probably a sin.



Is it right that Pastor Ted be removed from his position in the NAE, and within his own church?



I think so. Christians would say that the Decalogue is the Law for all believers, and not even a Pastor of a Church or the President of its governing body should be considered above it.



Everybody else would say that both positions are repositories of a trust between him and his followers. If a leader abuses that trust, he should be replaced by someone who won't.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

matt,


as a contemplative this Haggard thing reveals that we as a society still can't talk about sex.

It's the elephant in the room.



I realize it is not a big deal and quite honestly this will have no effect on the election but this concerns me for several reasons.



The religous organization he headed up is thirty million strong. That's a tenth of our population. That population by and large are conservative and white. They are afraid their familial structures are being destroyed by gays and liberals (which is a load of crap.) So he preached messages that made the lives of the downtrodden (gay) very hard while ignoring the log in his own eye. That troubles me because I have studied enough history to know that another person will step up w/ all the answers and do more damage.



Someone could take his messages spin them and use them to gay bash or hurt people that are suffering. As a Christian and former lay counselor i have seen and even done some of the things I have railed against. Now I am about healing all broken people but this makes the job harder.



I know that people need to be loved and accepted unconditionally but Haggard did not do that by preaching what he preached. That sets a dangerous precedent.



So now my problem is w/ his failure what's going to come up next? What immature super gung ho evangelical is going to step up and take his place? how many more are going to get hurt.



I am concerned about that.



But I do see some good as people that have railed against gays are now extending love to this man.



Now as to homosexuality. Yes it is a sin but all sex acts are sinful at some point in time it's just that heterosexual marriage supplies a grace to explore that for believers.



I think since God can overlook and turns a blind eye to David's dalliances, Solomon's harem, Paul's and Moses being murderers and Samson's issues I can see him using gay marriage to wake up Christians. If he can use Babylon to teach Israel to be faithful in exile then he will teach Christians to love their wives thru watching two men or women love each other. he's used stranger and even more profane things.



p>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"I guess this helps explain why so many conservatives around here hadn't heard of him. He sounds like a bit of a black sheep, what with the whole "protecting the environment" thing that so many conservatives apparently hate..."


Rick Warren signed the same dealio. He is apparently known for being relatively moderate politically, and relatively liberal theologically. However, the reason most Conservatives hadn't heard of him is that he is not nearly so influential as the press is now making him out to be.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Well I first heard of him a while ago but that's because I like watching Dateline, and other news shows. Every once in a while a person can learn something.


p>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"It's just two names I pulled out of my ear. It would probably be easier to just write "gay male couple"..."


No, I like Bruce and Kyle. Let's stick with Bruce and Kyle.



"Evangelicals spend way too much time worrying about it."



On the flip side, you could say that non-evangelicals spend way too much time worrying about it. To the extent that I care about the gay marriage issue (which isn't all that much) I care



a) Because it is used as a bludgeon to portray Christians as ignorant fools.



b) Because the courts have used this as an opportunity to subert legislature in an attempt to impose their moral norms.



"I don't recall any commentary from Jesus one way or another on the subject. Am I wrong?"



Not per se. But I think you know you are being incomplete. There are few examples of Christ saying what is and is not sin. He didn't need to.



"And last I checked, Paul wasn't the Son of God. Jesus is."



Are you arguing that what Paul sais wasn't God breathed? If so, then I wouldn't consider you an evangelical. If not, then you haven't made a point here.



"I think Jesus was too busy healing the sick, feeding the poor, and giving hope to the hopeless that he didn't have a lot of time to think about sex, one way or the other."



This isn't true.



"Through His actions, we have our priorities outlined for us, and we sit around worrying about boys kissing.... Doesn't this make us look slightly obtuse?"



Only because people continue to reinforce the stereotype of the "God, Gunas and Gays" Christian. By the way, wasn't this post about the political fallout of "boys kissing". Certainly seems to concern Amy Sullivan.



"I find it interesting that when He does broach the subjects of morality in sexuality and marriage, it has to do with the themes of fidelity, adultery and divorce. "



Absolutely. This is the point. The Christians I know would not single out homosexuality as some sort of egregious sin. Of course, some Christians are ignorant, and choose to single out homosexuals. That said, do you know how many dereogatory comments about homosexuals I heard at the left-wing liberal arts college I attended?



You are also correct that Ted Haggard is being removed from leadership because he committed adultery (and possibly used meth). I don't think his church membership is treating the issue any differently because he had sex with a man.



The problem is that, in the political arena, the question of gay marriage has become one of whether or not we hate homosexuals. As long as we deal with the issue in those terms, it will always be inflammatory.>

D4P · 3 years ago

However, the reason most Conservatives hadn't heard of him is that he is not nearly so influential as the press is now making him out to be.


This is a conclusion that can be drawn, but it's not necessarily the only one. How do you know, for example, anything about whether Bush heeded Haggard's words in their meetings? If we define influence that way, I don't know why Conservatives necessarily would have heard about him.



From what I can tell, the guy didn't have a nationally-televised TV program, didn't lead a group like Focus in the Family that made the news all the time, and didn't write a best-selling book like Purpose-Driven Life. I think that kind of stuff helps explain why he wasn't well-known, more so than whether or not he was influential. Seems to me it's quite possible for Bush to follow someone's guidance without us knowing about it, especially if Bush was meeting with that someone on occasion.>

justintime · 3 years ago

Excellent post about the Haggard scandal at DailyKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/5/35749/3851?detail=f

.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"Excellent post about the Haggard scandal at DailyKos:"


Yeah, I stopped reading when he compared the evangelical church to Nazi Germany, as did anyone else the writer might be hoping to persuade.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

And the authors name is Dogemperor. I remember blogging about some rant by a guy who called himself Darksyde. Did they import their names from their Everquest characters?>

justintime · 3 years ago

dogemperor is a woman who walked away from an abusive dominionist church.


You seem to be overly protective of your own mind, Kevin.

As soon as you find something you disagree with, you instantly turn away from it, as if your mind could somehow become contaminated.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"From what I can tell, the guy didn't have a nationally-televised TV program,"


I thought he was on TBN with Joel Osteen and the other off-kilter dudes.



At any rate, this "outing" was clearly timed to correspond with the election, and the press pimped it as a pseudo November surprise. I don't think this story is front page news unless it augurs well for the electoral wishes of journalists.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"As soon as you find something you disagree with, you instantly turn away from it, as if your mind could somehow become contaminated."


I have never turned away from information (it's how I went from liberal to conservative in the first place). However, when I see wild comparisons between x and Nazi Germany, I inherently have to question everything else the author says about x, and I cannot credibly observe the assumptions that they make. I read Rolling Stone, Dailykos, etc... But I take them with a grain of salt, knowing they are very partisan. I do the same with Weekly Standard, RCP and National Review. I don't read National Review and say "Wow! Now I've found truth!" I read them and say "Okay, this is what right leaning people think about this."



Dogemperor is a woman? Now the name makes even less sense.>

justintime · 3 years ago

Kevin said, "Yeah, I stopped reading when he compared the evangelical church to Nazi Germany, as did anyone else the writer might be hoping to persuade."


You must have been having a hallucinatory cognitive dissonance experience, Kevin.



There is nothing in dogemperor's post about Nazi Germany.

But there is a lot of first hand information about abusive dominionist churches.

.>

D4P · 3 years ago

At any rate, this "outing" was clearly timed to correspond with the election


That's certainly a possibility, but it's also true that Mike Jones claims to have voted for Reagan and Bush.



Either way, like I've said before, this kind of stuff will only inspire conservatives to vote in more people like Haggard to fight homosexuality. Plus, the guy was (in conservative terms) an "environmentalist wacko," so they're probably glad to get rid of him anyway.>

justintime · 3 years ago

Kevin, "At any rate, this "outing" was clearly timed to correspond with the election, and the press pimped it as a pseudo November surprise. I don't think this story is front page news unless it augurs well for the electoral wishes of journalists."


There you go again, Kevin.

This was not a Democratic Party conspiracy against the Christian right.

Mike Jones had only discovered Haggard's identity a few days before he decided to go public with his story.

Jones's issue is Colorado's anti gay legislation.

One man was outraged with Ted Haggard's hypocrisy and decided to go public.

You can take off your tinfoil hat now.

.>

D4P · 3 years ago

PS to Kevin: What impact do you think Jones intended his revelations to have on the elections?>

Jessica · 3 years ago

[URL]http://www.calendario.alitalian.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.superman.alitalian.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.fiorentina.alitalian.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.bolle.alitalian.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.nati.ragazzio.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.fuoco.ragazzio.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.vita.e4gcco.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.dj-italia.alitalian.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.la-scala.e4gcco.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.milan.e4gcco.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.sesso-con-cavalli.e4gcco.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.barzellette.e4gcco.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.giovanni.e4gcco.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.easy-jet.ragazzio.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.erotismo.ragazzio.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.virgilio.alitalian.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.canna.ragazzio.org[/URL] [URL]http://www.pesca.ragazzio.org[/URL]>

justintime · 3 years ago

Jessica, what are you trying to say?
Those links either don't work or you're trying to send us to porn sites.

.>

D4P · 3 years ago

I'm assuming "Jessica" is a man using a woman's name to seem more credible and less threatening. Oh so clever...>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"There is nothing in dogemperor's post about Nazi Germany."


from dogemperors article:



"and some of the rhetoric is actually frighteningly similar to anti-Semitic literature from the 30's.">

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"Mike Jones had only discovered Haggard's identity a few days before he decided to go public with his story."


Riiiiiiiiight...



And he jsut happened to keep two 100 dollar bills as, what, a memento? This was calculated, though not with the Democratic party.



"PS to Kevin: What impact do you think Jones intended his revelations to have on the elections?"



Clearly, he wants gay marriage legislation to fail, along with those who support them.>

Mike Hayes 2 · 3 years ago

http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=nae.contact provides contact
email addresses for the National Association of Evangelicals.



If you want to express compassion for Ted Haggard and his family, one

of the addresses is for the office of the president of the

association. Perhaps they would forward those on to Ted Haggard and

his family.>

jessie · 3 years ago

People keep wanting to make this about the "Christian Right" and white christian conservatives but this is about a Christian leader. Though he may have been involved in some political causes, he was not a political figure, and the organization he headed (NEA) is made up of millions of Christians who are generally more diverse (at least ethnically) than most of your more liberal mainline denominations. That Haggard fell is a tragedy for all believers. The fact that people are making it into something political suggests that, to many, politics is more important than Christ and his church. Is it about gay marriage? Than why don't you bash and show hatred towards 60% or more of the world (including Jim Wallis).


And you wonder why liberals and the Democratic party have problems wooing evangelical voters? Why would I vote for someone who despises me and my beliefs??>

mykull · 3 years ago

Remember that time in history when slavery was legal, and the Bible was used to justify it? Or how about when segregation was legal, also justified by the Bible?


For a long time now the Bible has been used to condemn homosexuals--never mind the thorny issues of biblical translation, biblical rewritings throughout various periods of history, and different interpretations of scripture. Fundamentalists cherry pick select bits of scripture to condemn homosexuality, despite the fact that there are several other bits of scripture that seem, in today's times, weird and outdated (e.g., people must not "not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material"; Leviticus 19:19).



The fundamentalists--in tandem with the Bush administration--have actively encouraged the condemnation of homosexuality, and as such have helped to ensure that gays and lesbians do not have the same basic rights as equal, tax-paying citizens in this country.



And it's about much, much more than just gay marriage. As a gay person in this country, you can:



* be fired for your sexual identity

* be evicted for your sexual identity

* be prosecuted for engaging in same-sex activity

* be denied the right to marry your partner

* be denied the right to adopt

* be denied medical visitation rights if your partner is in the hospital

* be denied the right to your partner's inheritance if your partner passes away

* be denied the right to attend your partner's own funeral



I find it quite peculiar that fundementalists choose to focus on gay marriage instead of, say, the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of people because of the Iraq War.



I think Jesus would care much more about taking care of the sick, the poor, the hungry, the disenfranchised, and the dying than he would about people--regardless of sexual make-up--who choose to exchange vows with each other out of mutual love and respect.>

mykull · 3 years ago

Jessie: "People keep wanting to make this about the "Christian Right" and white christian conservatives but this is about a Christian leader."


This IS about the Christian Right. Haggard was the #2 fundamentalist leader in the country. (Btw, note I am using the term "fundamentalist," not evangelical--highlighting that fundamentalists are a subset of evangelicals.)



"Though he may have been involved in some political causes, he was not a political figure"



You are wrong. Ted Haggard met with Bush once a week, and he was actively involved in several political causes, gay marriage being only one of them. Here's a lengthy, in-depth look at Haggard and his church, via Harper's (May 2005):



http://www.harpers.org/SoldiersOfChrist-20061103288348488.html#3-anchor



"and the organization he headed (NEA) is made up of millions of Christians who are generally more diverse (at least ethnically) than most of your more liberal mainline denominations."



How would you know what kind of ethnic make-up there is in "your more liberal mainline denominations"? Have you been to all of them to see? Do you have any sources to confirm this? But in any case, what does ethnic make-up have to do with this? I'm well aware that fundamentalists are not all white males.



"That Haggard fell is a tragedy for all believers."



Yes, it is. I feel very sorry for him and his family. And if it is true that he is homosexual, I especially feel sorry that his shame and self-loathing were so extreme that he diguised himself as an anti-gay fundamentalist preacher. I hope that he follows the example of Mel White and realizes that Jesus loves all of us, regardless of sexuality, and that he is not condemned to hell.



"The fact that people are making it into something political suggests that, to many, politics is more important than Christ and his church."



No one is MAKING this into something political--it IS political. Again, he was both a religious AND a political figure. He met with Bush on a weekly basis. He talked about political causes. In fact, some of his political causes I am in agreement with--global wearming, anti-torture to name just two of them.



"Is it about gay marriage? Than why don't you bash and show hatred towards 60% or more of the world (including Jim Wallis)."



It is not solely about gay marriage, but it is also about that because Haggard chose to speak out against gay marriage and to condemn homosexuality. Where do you see anybody in this post bashing or hating Haggard? Calling him out for his hyopcrisy is not the same thing as bashing or hating him. I've read many comments in this post in which "libeerals" have said they feel sorry and sad for him and his family. By the way, your 60% figure is for the U.S.A., not the world. There are several European countries that have legalized marriage, and it hasn't ruined the institution of marriage so far. And that 40% of U.S. citizens think gay marriage should be legal is an improvement over even 5 years ago. In time, I believe that people will begin to see that there's no real reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Even up until the 1970s it was still illegal in some states for a black person to marry a white person. How ridiculous that notion seems to us now. I optimistically believe it will be the same with gay marriage within the next 10 - 20 years.



"And you wonder why liberals and the Democratic party have problems wooing evangelical voters?"



No, I don't wonder that. The Republicans have done a fantastic job of uniting their political leanings and motivations with the fundamentalists, to the point that the two are almost inextricable. I hope this serves as a wake-up call to both parties that mixing religion and politics is dangerous.



"Why would I vote for someone who despises me and my beliefs?"



I don't despise you and your beliefs, and I don't think anyone else in this post does either. If you are a fundamentalist, I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible and the issues you choose to focus on. Just as I assume that you disagree with my interpretation of the Bible and the issues that I focus on as a liberal Christian.>

mykull · 3 years ago

Sorry, make that: There are several European countries that have legalized gay marriage, and it hasn't ruined the institution of marriage so far.>

jessie · 3 years ago

"This IS about the Christian Right. Haggard was the #2 fundamentalist leader in the country. (Btw, note I am using the term "fundamentalist," not evangelical--highlighting that fundamentalists are a subset of evangelicals.)"


--Apparently you can't tell the difference between a fundamentalist, an evangelical, and a politically conservative christian. You obviously know nothing about the NEA. Please educate yourself.



"You are wrong. Ted Haggard met with Bush once a week, and he was actively involved in several political causes, gay marriage being only one of them."



--He teleconferenced (not met) with Bush or one of his advisers once a week. Billy Graham spoke with many presidents (conservative and liberal). Does that make him a political figure?



And, so far, we've reviewed evidence that he supported some "conservative" causes (traditional marriage) and some "liberal" causes (global warming). He was not a political figure. He was a pastor and a Christian leader.



"How would you know what kind of ethnic make-up there is in "your more liberal mainline denominations"? Have you been to all of them to see? Do you have any sources to confirm this?"



--See here: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_7_118/ai_71949662

The author writes, "the poorest record on diversity--only 2 to 3 percent mixed on average--belongs to historic Protestant churches."



"By the way, your 60% figure is for the U.S.A., not the world."

--You're right. It is likely higher in other parts of the world (besides Europe). Given that it's only legal in a few European countries and a couple of states suggests that most of the world is hate-filled and bigoted, I suppose.



"I don't despise you and your beliefs, and I don't think anyone else in this post does either. "

--Sorry, but I've read a lot of critical posts here of "fundamentalists" and their beliefs. Your own arm-chair psychoanalysis about feeling "sorry that his shame and self-loathing were so extreme that he diguised himself as an anti-gay fundamentalist preacher" is not really that flattering to Haggard or to evangelicals. I've read a lot of posts here (including Sullivan's original post) that have used Haggard's sin to criticize evangelical hypocrisy and the hatred they are filled with.



All evangelicals are being insulted here. This is a good demonstration of evangelicals' problem with liberals and democrats. It is not unfounded.>

jessie · 3 years ago

Another quote from the website I linked to above: "Another recent study confirmed the finding that there are relatively fewer integrated churches in mainline denominations' and relatively more among Catholic and conservative Protestant churches.">

justintime · 3 years ago

Jessie, "Though he [Haggard] may have been involved in some political causes, he was not a political figure, "


I disagree.



Both Ted Haggard and James Dobson stepped into the political arena on their own initiative.

They are (or were) Bush's Evangelical political advisors.

Greg Boyd speaks out against Christian leaders who practice politics.



This is a political issue and because it is a political issue, it's not going away any time soon.

.>

jessie · 3 years ago

"This is a political issue and because it is a political issue, it's not going away any time soon."
--Sounds like you don't want it to go away any time soon. Supporting some political causes does not make you a political figure. Bush wanted advice from Christian leaders. Haggard gave it. This does not make him a political figure. And this point is not really relevant, anyway. Even if he was a political figure, he doesn't deserve the treatment he's received here. He is a Christian. A brother falls, and people can only think about politics and their own personal issues with evangelicals. It's wrong.>

mykull · 3 years ago

"Apparently you can't tell the difference between a fundamentalist, an evangelical, and a politically conservative christian. You obviously know nothing about the NEA. Please educate yourself."


Is that so? Fundamentalists are a subset of evangelicals. Please tell me how that is an incorrect statement.



"You're right. It is likely higher in other parts of the world (besides Europe). Given that it's only legal in a few European countries and a couple of states suggests that most of the world is hate-filled and bigoted, I suppose."



When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, yes, most of the world condemns it. What is your point, exactly?



"Sorry, but I've read a lot of critical posts here of "fundamentalists" and their beliefs."



Do you mean fundamentalists' belief that homosexuality is a sin? If so, then yes, lots of people have been critical of it. Just as I'm sure you would be critical of liberal Christians' belief that homosexuality is not a sin.



"Your own arm-chair psychoanalysis about feeling "sorry that his shame and self-loathing were so extreme that he diguised himself as an anti-gay fundamentalist preacher" is not really that flattering to Haggard or to evangelicals."



I wasn't trying to flatter anyone. It's true--fundamentalists have demonized homosexuality to the point where someone who is gay has to hide himself/herself. I suspect there are several closet cases within the fundemantalist ranks.



"I've read a lot of posts here (including Sullivan's original post) that have used Haggard's sin to criticize evangelical hypocrisy"



Why would you have a problem with hypocrisy being called out?



"All evangelicals are being insulted here."



Since when do you speak for all evangelicals?



"This is a good demonstration of evangelicals' problem with liberals and democrats. It is not unfounded."



It seems clear to me that you are adopting a reverse-victimization stance--which is rather common among fundamentalists.



By the way, the article you cited lists nothing about the racial make-up of Haggard's church. What you stated was that Haggard's church "is made up of millions of Christians who are generally more diverse (at least ethnically) than most of your more liberal mainline denominations." Please give me the statistics for Haggard's church and the statistics for "most of your more liberal mainline denominations." The Catholic Church in my city--where the pastor is gay--is mostly Hispanic and African American, with about 25% Caucasian. And no, it's not a UCC church. There are even--gasp!--Republicans who go there.>

Hal · 3 years ago

"it might be worth wondering if there aren't sins that might be worse"


Is one sin worse than another? Sin is the willful transgression of the known law of God. It is also anything that keeps us from the perfect will of God. Sin is the barrier that keeps us from a holy relationship with the one who created us. Mercifully God sent his son to redeem us from our sin.





In regard to our own sin, we should remember the two greatest commandments (See Luke 10:27-37):



1. Love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength and with all your mind.



2. Love your neighbor as yourself.





Who is our neighbor? Who do we despise because of their political affiliation, religious beliefs, ethnic identity, economic status, social class, gender, reproductive choice, or sexual practice? Who is in need? Are we reaching out to give aid to the wounded and afflicted, or are we judging, mocking and condemning others because they are somehow different than ourselves?



Maybe our failure to live up to these two greatest commandments is our greatest sin. Once we deal with this sin and begin living in full communion with God and our neighbor; then maybe we can rank other sins, or maybe we will no longer feel it is necessary.>

justintime · 3 years ago

1. Love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength and with all your mind.


2. Love your neighbor as yourself.



Most of the world's great religions agree on these.



But not all of those on the spiritual path are as fixated on the concept of sin as we are.

.>

jessie · 3 years ago

"Is that so? Fundamentalists are a subset of evangelicals. Please tell me how that is an incorrect statement."
--You are incorrect in that you label Haggard's organization fundamentalist. It is not.



"When it comes to the issue of homosexuality, yes, most of the world condemns it. What is your point, exactly?"

--By your logic, most of the world is hate-filled and bigoted, not just "fundamentalists" or Christians who hold Biblical views of sex.



"Since when do you speak for all evangelicals?"

--I don't. I'm merely stating the fact that many purporting to be Christian are using a fallen brother to score political points. This is wrong.



"It seems clear to me that you are adopting a reverse-victimization stance--which is rather common among fundamentalists."

--Just pointing out the fact that you and others here are acting unlovingly towards a Christian who has fallen. If Wallis or Campolo or any liberal Christian were caught in sin, I hope I would not act the same.>

Stephen · 3 years ago

Homosexuality is not a sin.


Adultery is.

So is bearing false witness.



May we find the humility to forgive him as God forgives him, and move on.



As a part of our gay agenda, we gays want to be able to get at and educate people like Haggard before they get married and spoil the lives of others with the psychosis of the closet.>

mykull · 3 years ago

"You are incorrect in that you label Haggard's organization fundamentalist. It is not."


Jessie, did you read the Harper's article I linked to earlier? It is an in-depth piece about Ted Haggard and his church. It is irrefutable that Haggard is a fundamentalist and that in addition to being a preacher, he also works on a political level. Anyone who advises the president on his policies is by nature acting politically. Please take the time to read the article--Haggard spent a lot of time with the author.



"By your logic, most of the world is hate-filled and bigoted, not just "fundamentalists" or Christians who hold Biblical views of sex."



That is incorrect. While I may find their viewpoints on homosexuality fueled by learned prejudice and therefore bigoted, that is one issue among an entire spectrum of issues. The situation is different in this country, and particularly provocative right now, becauase the Bush administration in tandem with the fundamentalist movement have chosen to make gay marriage one of the top priorities in politics. The entire gay and lesbian community is tired of being the scapegoat for this religious group. Enough already. The Bible has been used throughout history to condemn many things we now take for granted. Using the Bible to condemn homosexuality is a willful misreprentation of scripture that needs to stop.



"I'm merely stating the fact that many purporting to be Christian are using a fallen brother to score political points. This is wrong. . . . Just pointing out the fact that you and others here are acting unlovingly towards a Christian who has fallen. If Wallis or Campolo or any liberal Christian were caught in sin, I hope I would not act the same.



I'm sorry you see it that way. This isn't about scoring political points. Again, Haggard chose to enter the political arena. Fundamentalists chose to pair up with the Bush administration. When one of their figureheads--who was preaching about the evils of homosexuality--turns out to have engaged in homosexual activity himself, you can bet we're going to call out the hypocrisy. People are going to discuss the political and cultural issues around this and explicate what Haggard's actions mean (if anything) for the future of the fundamentalist movement. THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE ARE REVELING IN HAGGARD'S DOWNFALL. IT DOES NOT MEAN WE ARE NOT PRAYING FOR HIM. IT DOES NOT MEAN WE HATE HIM. IT DOES NOT MEAN WE DO NOT FEEL EMPATHY FOR HIM. (If anything, I think gays feel an additional--not deeper, just additional--level of empathy for him, as we all know what it feels like to be in the closet and to fear condemnation.)



It seems to me that perhaps you know Haggard personally and/or are a member of his church. I am truly sorry if it seems like people are beating up on someone you obviously admire and respect. But I can assure you that the discussion here is about the politics centered around his behavior. He deserves all of our love and kindness. I do not condemn him and I hope that he finds a way to both accept himself and to continue being a Christian. There are many before him who have done the same.>

mykull · 3 years ago

"If Wallis or Campolo or any liberal Christian were caught in sin, I hope I would not act the same."


Also, I forgot to say that I fervently disagree with Wallis's views on gay marriage, and I hope he will come to change his mind. If Wallis were to actively campaign against gay marriage and it turned out he was having a homosexual relationship, I would call him out on his hypocrisy just like I have with Haggard, and just like I will do with anyone who seeks to bar me from my equal rights as a citizen of this country.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"As a part of our gay agenda, we gays want to be able to get at and educate people like Haggard before they get married and spoil the lives of others with the psychosis of the closet."


I asked this before, but what if he is bi?>

mykull · 3 years ago

If he is bi then he should not be condemned or have any rights taken away for being equally sexually attracted to men as he is to women. It's simple.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

If he's bi so what he is still human. The problem is the prejudice he helped foster and the damage to an already marginalized and broken community. How that can be ignored is beyond me.


p>

jessie · 3 years ago

Mykull,
What you say is "calling out hypocrisy" I say is gloating over someone who has been caught in sin. You say you don't condemn him, but that's all I've been reading. You seem to think that anyone who gets involved at all in politics can be ridiculed in more personal, negative ways than people who are not involved. I disagree.



Any preacher who is caught in adultery is guilty of hypocrisy. What does reveling in this accomplish? I've known a preacher or two who were involved in adultery. It just made me sad when I heard about it. My reaction was not at all like those I've seen here.



Homosexual acts are not the only thing he preached against. If he sinned at all, he would be guilty of hypocrisy. I don't see why liberals are so obsessed with hypocrisy. Is it because conservatives are more likely to have standards and liberals have none that they can violate?



If having standards means that I'll sometimes be a hypocrite, then a hypocrite I shall be.



The NAE that Haggard was president of is the National Association of *Evangelicals*. See here: http://www.nae.net/ . Please learn the difference between evangelicalism and fundamentalism. You really do not seem to understand it. There is a tendency on this blog to call "fundamentalist" anyone who is a Christian who has views that are more conservative than their's. "Fundamentalist" is a negative label liberals give to people they'd rather not debate. It's fun to call people that, I guess, but don't expect them to be receptive to your arguments when you do.>

Fran Spencer · 3 years ago

Please. The gays and pro gays here "care about Haggard" and "pray for his family". Yeah right. This is a partisan party, folks.
Homosexuality most definitely is frowned upon all over the world, by every single religion. You don't have to be a bigot to believe that homosex is wrong and or sinful. In fact, common sense tells you that the parts aren't made with homosex in mind. Given these facts, I have no problem with civil unions, which is a fair way to solve this issue. Gays want marriage because gays want FULL approval, which they will never get. It's not a battle I would wage were I setting the gay "agenda".

Gay marriage is basically an attck on religion, so you can bet there will be continued friction regarding this matter.

It's a partisan culture war topic, and you can't pretend that you love the other side when such venom is being shown.>

jessie · 3 years ago

I'd also add that just because he had homosexual sex does not mean that he was a hypocrite for his opposition to against gay marriage. He was a hypocrite because he preached against homosexual acts, yes. But his concerns about gay marriage likely had more to do with what is best for children--that they have a mother and father--rather than his moral opposition to homosexual sex. To truly be a hypocrite in his opposition to gay marriage he would have to be secretly married to a man while publicly opposing gay marriage.


But I guess this whole debate is touching a nerve and is hitting you personally. I hope I have not offended you with anything I've said, either. What happened to Haggard is just sad to me, and it upsets me to see him treated this way.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Fran and Jessie,


Then I guess you all are opposed to oral and anal sex between consenting heterosexual couples because the last time I check the tongue and and genitals don't fit together. Neither do the anus and and the penis but I digress.



Your right every religion is bigoted against gay sex and yet every religion the world over has adherents that practice it. So what does that say about the worldly religions?



Question since when is being labeled a fundamentalist a pejorative?



Just like labeling a liberal is not a pejorative. They are earthly labels and yes he is a hypocrit, if he had gay sex or a gay "massage" while railing against such behavior and gay marriage then that makes him a hypocrit.



If you can't live up to the standards you espouse then don't call out other people. It weakens the principles you hold dear. It's just lame. Why you would want to be a hypocrit instead of a man of integrity is beyond me.



Just because I choose not to call people out on their sex practices doesn't mean I don't have standards. I live those out to the best of my ability but I don't place those standards on other people. To do so would make me a hypocrit and a liar. I am trying to cut that out as much as possible. I think that's a good idea no?



p>

jessie · 3 years ago

Payshun,
I agree that living up to your standards is better than not doing so. But we are all going to fail standards sometimes. Just because this is the case doesn't mean we shouldn't have standards. People here sound like they never want preachers to mention sin.>

Pastor C · 3 years ago

Dear People,
I've read this whole blog, and I love your passion. How I wish I could sit down with you and do a Bible study. Any of the passages would be okay, but especially Romans 1:18--2:1. The larger context of those who are being condemned by God is clearly that these people knew God but turned away and did not honor God, did not thank God. Because they refused to worship God, God gave them over to lusts, etc. The gays whom I know personally in my church honor, love and serve God, as gay people. They cannot be the ones Paul is writing about. And Paul reminds us that no one can pass judgment, anyway, Rom. 2:1. Thank goodness, that's not our job.

Pastor C>

Kannbrown65 · 3 years ago

Remember, it isn't just 'caught in a sin'. It is specifically 'caught in a sin that they had spent most of their time in pulpit, and in political action, lobbying against'.


So, if someone decries something publically, spending more than average time on it, and THEN is caught doing the exact same thing, THEN it is merely reaping what they sowed. They are, after all, only being treated exactly as they treated those whom they preached against. Reaping the results of attitudes they encouraged.



I.E., notice that the 'sexual immorality' got him kicked out, but not a word on the illegal purchase of meth?>

Squirt · 3 years ago

Christianity as defended by the apologists in this forum is TOXIC POISON which damages the natural order on this planet. This stems from your claim that all mankind is fundamentally flawed and requires your particular form of salvation. Your bible has filled your head with TOXIC ideas about right and wrong based on the irrational authority you give to magic (miracles) and fortune-telling (prophesy).


You say love the sinner and hate the sin but your automatic label of sinner is nothing more than self-righteous judgment which by its definition prevents you from loving anything.



SIN DOES NOT EXIST IN REALITY. It s a manmade construct, a concept in language, used to describe reality, but not the thing itself. Do animals sin? Do trees? Do rocks? Do stars? Why humans, then? Please, give it a rest. It doesn t make rational sense.



Belief in the SUPERNATURAL, ghosts and demons and heaven paved in gold, now this is crazy thinking. Try for a change the idea that mankind has a NATURAL place on this planet and that we belong here in nature doing exactly what we do, warts and all. There is no need for a messiah because there s nothing to save. If ever there was an ANTI-CHRIST idea, this is it. The antithesis of Christianity s message is that there s NOTHING WRONG WITH US just as there s nothing wrong with cats or dogs or ants or worms or dirt or water or air. It s all part of the natural order of things.



This is not to say that mistakes can be made, learned from, and improved upon. But instead of harping about right and wrong, try asking the question Is it working? Is it working for me to do this? Answering this question can yield different answers at different times, for sure, and will give you insight and integrity without the TOXIC condemnation and irrational fear of eternal consequences. Try it? You might find that it works. You also may find that love, compassion and forgiveness become easier to make manifest in your world.



Or you can pray in fear for the rapture and an end to it all. It s your choice>

Ric · 3 years ago

A great reflection by Gordon McDonald on all of this:


http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/11/the_haggard_tru.html#more



For those who don't know McDonald was shamed in a similar way several years ago while heading a church on the east coast, and having just been appointed the new president of Intervarsity. After a long period of rehabilitation he eventually returned to ministry.>

Fran Spencer · 3 years ago

Homosexuality is frowned upon by ALL of the worlds religions for very obvious reasons; homosexuality is fundamentally disordered. So, what this says about the world's religions is that the world's religions are based on natural law, God's will, and a bit of common sense that the gay community seems to lack.>

Boudicca · 3 years ago

Homosexuality is not frowned on by ALL the worlds' religions--


And homosexuality is not uncommon in the animal kingdom.



What is exclusive to human kind, however, is the blatant Hypocracy and demagogery portrayed by Mr. Haggard.



Hopefully, this will open the eyes of some of his 14,000 congregation, and 30 million Evangelicals, to realize that just because someone is homosexual DOESN'T mean they are to be vilified. That should be reserved for the hypocrates and liars.>

Pacific231Reloaded · 3 years ago

Sometimes I think that America is full of churches...but VERY few Christians. >

mykull · 3 years ago

Interesting reading


1) From Newsweek, "An Evangelical Identity Crisis":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15566654/site/newsweek/



2) From Americablog, "Evangelicals in crisis":



And it's a very welcome crisis, I think - not in the "I hate the religious right, let them suffer" kind of way, but rather, in the "the religious right has gotten away from Jesus" kind of way. They no longer represent Jesus' teachings, they now represent Ceasar's.



The religious right has "gone too far," says Hamilton. "They've lost their focus on the spirit of Jesus and have separated the world into black and white, when the world is much more gray." He adds: "I can't see Jesus standing with signs at an anti-gay rally. It's hard to picture that."



James Dobson, the Family Research Council, Lou Sheldon, and the men at the Concerned Women for America are angry people. They do not talk like the kind of Christians I grew up with on the south side of Chicago in the 1960s. They talk more like Ken Mehlman. And Karl Rove.



Whatever happened to love thy neighbor? Whatever happened to feeding the poor and the hungry? Whatever happened to being good stewards of the earth? All of that flew out the window when the religious right tricked its evangelical flock to focus more on gay marriages than their own. To focus more on unborn children than the world's one billion children in need who are already alive and in dire need of help.



Evangelicals in America are in crisis, and as much as it must pain them, I believe it's a good and healthy crisis. Their churches and their leaders have gotten too big, too rich, and too political. They've become beholdened to one political party - and to money and riches and power - and now that political party, and that desire for wealth and influence, controls them. And when you start doing the work of politicians, or the almighty dollar, you stop doing the work of the Almighty.



It's time evangelicals had their own Republican revolution. And it's not just a revolution to overthrow their overlords in the Republican party, but it's also a revolution to overthrow their overlords at the largest "family values" organizations and churches who care more about who they hate than who they love.>

Pacific231Reloaded · 3 years ago

Mykull, I could not agree more. Perhaps the evangelicals will have their own overdue purging of the truly evil RoveCheney Inc. merchants from the temple.>

Wolverine · 3 years ago

The Gordon McDonald article is on the whole a good read. I could quibble with a couple things here and there but what I take to be his main points are all solid.


Nothing would please me more than to see Rev. Haggard restored, but that will take several years.



And yes, much as I agree with the conservative worldview in politics, evangelicals need to evaluate how closely the church is allied with political leaders.



Wolverine>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

Fran Spencer...


"Homosexuality is frowned upon by ALL of the worlds religions"



This is a lie.



"for very obvious reasons; homosexuality is fundamentally disordered"



Said the Bishop to the altar boy.



"So, what this says about the world's religions is that the world's religions are based on natural law"



Actually, only Catholicism is based on that man-made concept. Homosexuality is found in abundance in nature.



"God's will, and a bit of common sense that the gay community seems to lack."



Said the pot to the kettle. Log in your eye?>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

Kannbrown65,


"notice that the 'sexual immorality' got him kicked out, but not a word on the illegal purchase of meth?"



Apparently, they didn't even bother to ask him any question son the purchase and use of illegal substances - they ONLY cared about the sex.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Fran,


Your statement was ignorant and silly. You make this statement that:



homosexuality is fundamentally disordered. So, what this says about the world's religions is that the world's religions are based on natural law, God's will, and a bit of common sense that the gay community seems to lack.



That's just silly. As if heterosexuality were ordered. BTW it's not. That's the thing about sex we all got dirt, thoughts and things we should not do but do in our closets. It doesn't matter how much we try to do the right thing when it comes to sex there will always be a stumbling block in our very dna.



So will you be a person of grace or a person of condemnation? which are you?



p>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

Payshun,


I know you mean well, but you promulgate the lies when you typed: "Your right every religion is bigoted against gay sex".



THIS IS NOT TRUE. The United Church, the Unitarians, the Quakers, the Metropolitan Community Churches, Reformed (and soon to be Conservative) Judaism, many Anglicans etc. absolutely are NOT "bigoted against gay sex".>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

Fran,


What's worse, venom or lies?



YOU said:



"Homosexuality most definitely is frowned upon all over the world, by every single religion."



See my posts above - this is false.



"You don't have to be a bigot to believe that homosex is wrong and or sinful."



But it helps.



"In fact, common sense tells you that the parts aren't made with homosex in mind."



If you are referring to anal sex, heterosexuals particpate in that too. If you are referring to oral sex, heterosexuals participate in that too. "Common sense"??? What do you know of commmon sense? Apparently very littel.



"Given these facts, I have no problem with civil unions, which is a fair way to solve this issue."



Only if heterosexuals opt for that 'choice' too. The creation of a new institution is simply unnecessary. Marriage does the job just fine thanks anyway.



"Gays want marriage because gays want FULL approval, which they will never get."



Another lie. We want full equality. it is supposed to be guaranteed to us in the Constitution. And equality we will get. Already have in Canada, in Spain, in Belgium, in the Netherlands, in Massachusetts, and soon to be in South Africa and Isreal. And the list just gets longer.



"It's not a battle I would wage were I setting the gay "agenda"."



The 'gay agenda' is the Constitution, you remember, the document that says we are all created EQAUL, Oh yes, and the other piece of paper that allegedly guarantees liberty and justice for ALL, not for SOME. And the guarantee to the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't say those are jsut for heterosexuals does it?



"Gay marriage is basically an attck on religion"



Another lie. I was married in my Church. Hardly an atack on my religion. No pastor, rabbi, imam, or priest has ever been, or will ever be, forced to perform same-sex marriages. It will not happen. (Certainly not before Catholic priests are forced to marry divorced people.) In fact, they are not even being asked to. Last year, Rev. Jesse Jackson spoke to an association of black pastors and asked them how many had been asked to perform one, and NOT A SINGLE HAND WAS RAISED.



Sorry, but you are suffering from delusions.



If the best 'arguments' you can come up with are LIES and FALSEHOODS, you are going to lose the debate.



Peace to you.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Curiouser,


thanks for pointing this out but I should have clarified this. The five main religions are bigoted against gay sex. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judiasm, Islam, and Christianity, have had long histories saying that gay sex is wrong and that's what I meant.



p>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

So right, jessie, so right...


"You are incorrect in that you label Haggard's organization fundamentalist. It is not."



Correct. It is SELECTIVLEY FUNDAMENTALIST. And THAT'S part of the problem.>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

Why so cynical, kevin s?


" "Mike Jones had only discovered Haggard's identity a few days before he decided to go public with his story."



Riiiiiiiiight..."



A poster (WAAAY Up there) identified as an "evangelical" also had never heard of haggard until this. Why would a gay sex worker? I doubt watching Xtian TV was high on his list of priorities.>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

Sorry Payshun but you're digging yourself ever deeper...


"Hinduism, Buddhism, Judiasm, Islam, and Christianity"



Well, I've already cited at least 6 Christian denominations, and 2 Jewish branches that are NOT against homosexuality and consenting, adult, committed same-sex relationships. I also personally know Buddhists and Muslims who favour of equality for gay people.



I am not saying the 'majority' are in favour, but clearly not all Christian sects are of one mind on the topic.



Why would the tenets of some get to trump the tenets of others?>

Robert · 3 years ago

I have read many of the comments over the past few days, and I justs have a few things to say.


I spent ten years as a missionary to an Eastern European country loving my work, yet I spent 33 years hating myself.



Why? Because my fundamentalist church taught me to. I was born a wonderful, loving, gay child, and over time, with training, I was taught to hate myself.



I tried everything to 'fix' myself, even shock therapy, everything that fundamentalist so-called ex-gay ministries submit desperate self-hating gay men to - and no one, I repeat, no one I have ever met had the passion to have God change them like I had. It was my goal in life from a teenager on to become a heterosexual. There was no insincerity in me. There was also no cure - because there is no need for a cure. God loves all of us. And God loves me, just as I was created.



I do not feel sorry for Ted Haggard. He is right - he has gotten himself into this. He has created this mess for himself. He has also created a bigger mess for our gay community through his gay bashing and support of the ban on marriage.



His sin, as pointed out by so many, is NOT being gay - it is adultery and deceit. And I will not stand by idly and allow anyone to make me a scapegoat for a dishonest and adultering husband. One Jerry Falwell and One James Dobson in the world with their message of false guilt and self hatred is already too many.



I agree with a comment posted earlier this week - THE FIRST PLACE TED HAGGARD NEEDS TO GO IS TO THE LGBT COMMUNITY - - FIRST to ask for our forgiveness, and then second to the church to ask them to forgive him, and to ask them to reconsider their sinful ways of hate, control, manipulation, and money handling.



I am an expert evangelical of 36 years, grown up in the Pentecostal church, became a minister and missionary at 24, worship leader at 18...and no matter what anyone says, I can attest to the TRUTH that fundamentalism kills, and that fundamentalism teaches people to hate themselves as God has created them. And it is not just fundamentalism, but all Evangelical Sects (as we were called in Eastern Europe) that teach the word-for-word literal accuracy of the English Scriptures. Um, I also have a degree in Biblical Literature and Scriptural Interpretation and I just have to say - Folks, the Bible was not written in English.



I want the right to marry my partner, and live with him before God in faithfulness. I am not like this man, who should be on Oprah for destroying the lives of his wife, children, and parishioners.



I came out at 33, and knew not to marry a woman to cover this over, and made things right with people.



But ask yourself, why did I wait until 33 to come out??? - because I was deathly afraid of Evangelical Organizations and systems who want to strip me of my rights, prevent me from getting the rights they have, and many of whom would like to see me dead. And I was afraid of what my parents and family would do. I was afraid of being disowned by the people I loved most, because they listened to the message of James Dobson since I was 10. Read up on it, many, many Evangelical gay children are disowned, sent to ex-gay concentration camps, and scorned by their families.



BUT I AM NOT AFRAID ANY MORE, because the message they are preaching is not the good news of the Gospel, it is a message of demons. The message of Christ is love, not hate.



I ask all those reading this who say they love the sinner but hate the sin to ask themselves if Jesus has any 'BUT' in his love philosophy towards your neighbor.

THERE IS NO BUT.



I submit this comment with passion, with tears, and wishing that my former community of Evangelicals would see the hate and the double standard they are preaching. This is NOT what Jesus would do.



The gay (and gay Christian) community is waiting for Ted to come to us and ask for our forgiveness...but I am afraid we will be waiting for a long time.



~Pray for peace>

Jeff Livingston · 3 years ago

Robert,
What a powerful statement! God bless you.





Jeff>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"I ask all those reading this who say they love the sinner but hate the sin to ask themselves if Jesus has any 'BUT' in his love philosophy towards your neighbor."


Loving your neighbor doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want. If homosexuality is okay, then why isn't adultery, or whatever we want to do? Just saying "I do it lovingly before God" doesn't make it acceptable.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Ok never mind Curiouser I think you are missing the point here. Throwing in a few small splinter groups and denominations doesn't change the fact the religious philosophy and the majority of its adherents do discriminate. I don't understand why this is even a point of disagreement. It's true just look at how Catholicism, and Protestantism and Islam approach the subject and how the majority interpret their sacred texts.


I know Buddhists that are for gay rights, I am a Christian that is for it but to ignore what the majority thinks is foolish.



Kevin,



Considering your acts aren't any better no matter how much you may love your girlfriend or wife it doesn't change the fact that there is grace to cover all sin even heterosexuality. That's why God gave marriage and has rairly killed or destroyed straight sinners when they did something out of his plan. God is more gracious than what you are describing. He rises the sun on the just and the unjust.



p>

mykull · 3 years ago

Kevin S.: "If homosexuality is okay, then why isn't adultery, or whatever we want to do? Just saying "I do it lovingly before God" doesn't make it acceptable."


Because the Bible does not state that homosexuality is a sin. Period. And Jesus NEVER even addressed the issue.



Are you aware that the Bible has been translated several times over, and that in its hundreds of years of history selective quotes have been used against certain groups? Are you aware that just a few decades ago fundamentalists used scripture to outlaw interracial marriage? And are you aware that before that the Bible was used to justify slavery? All of this because of willful misinterpretation of the Bible.



"The literal translation of the Leviticus passage:



"V et zachar lo tishkav mishk vey eeshah toeyvah hee."



means



"And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman; it is ritually unclean."



In order to be interpreted as being against homosexuality, it was instead parsed as



"And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman; it is ritually unclean."



(In the modern era, it is now most frequently rendered as "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination," or similar.)



The second one ("lay [as the] lyings of a woman") has always seemed like a rather tortuous translation compared to ("lay [in the] lyings of a woman"), which, to me, at least, seems to make a good deal more sense.



It'd be an interesting minor quibble over a point of translation if it hadn't led to the needless suffering of millions of people.">

Matt Channing · 3 years ago

Kevin,


Homosexual marriage does not IMPOSE a new moral norm.



To IMPOSE something on someone means to force or coerce their participation or obedience.



The legalization of gay marriage does not force or coerce anyone into doing anything they wouldn't find it in their nature to do in the first place.



Nobody is asking for passage of a law making it mandatory that straight people marry members of the same sex.



Nobody is putting a gun in a dissenter's mouth and forcing them to attend a gay wedding.





In fact, if a pro-gay marriage law were to be passed tomorrow, those who think it's wrong will be able to still think that and live their lives on those terms. It will still be their perogative to instill that belief in their children, and create for themselves within their churches a community that holds to that particular point of view.



If I were to believe that consumption of alcohol was immoral, I would realize that the only person's intake I can control is mine.



If I find consumption of alcohol immoral, a law making sale and consumption of alcohol legal won't make me a drinker. Nobody is breaking down my door, holding a gun to my head and forcing me to do anything I might find objectionable.



The legality of the activity does not necessarily require I participate.



Those who want to drink can, but are they imposing their values on me by going about their business?



No. They are not. Not if they let me go about mine.





If gay marriage becomes a legal reality in the United States, it will have absolutely no bearing on how straight people go about their lives.



We can still be straight, marry the opposite sex, have kids, stay together, get divorced and do all the things we've done for centuries.



Not only do we not have to approve of gays marrying, we don't have do it ourselves, we don't have to watch, we don't have to attend, and we don't have to associate with gays, married or single, in our private lives.



It neither breaks our backs, or picks our pockets. It makes no imposition because we are not being forced to participate.>

Matt Channing · 3 years ago

Sometimes for fun, I'll go to Wikipedia and type in a random keyword or phrase and see where it leads me. It's a blast, and I almost always end up reading about a subject I hadn't even thought about until that moment.


I know. I'm such a nerd...



For instance, I looked up "Alfred Kinsey", and was sent immediately to his Wikipedia article. I knew he was famous for his research into human sexuality, but was stunned to discover before all of that, he was famed for his work in the field of entomology (did I spell that right?), or the study of insects. During fourteen years of research, Kinsey turned his attention solely to the study of the gall wasp, a small wasp that can be found nearly everywhere in North America.



I wondered, "Why would a researcher want to devote his time, energy and intellect to something so common as to be found nearly everywhere."



A click on the highlighted words "Gall Wasp" took me to an article that led me to another link concerning the upshot of Kinsey's research.



During his fourteen years of research, Kinsey travelled all over North America, collecting specimens, observing the wasps' various behaviors, and conducting experiments.



What he discovered about this "common" insect could be considered profound.



No two gall wasps were exactly alike.



From specimen to specimen, and from group to group, there were significant variations in everything from size and pigmentation, to wing length and mating habits.



A cross section of over five million specimens taken from all over the continent revealed one incontrovertible fact about gall wasps--



Within the species, variation among specimens was not an anomaly, but rather the norm.



Diversity was not the exception, but rather the rule.





Kinsey took the next logical step. Using his findings, he postulated that if a species as common as the gall wasp contained such a wide spectrum of variation, it was probable that other animal species probably exhibited their own spectrums of variation as well.



Kinsey discovered that research of other animal species by other scientists bore this out. Within every species on the planet, there are significant variations in every aspect of their physical attributes and behaviors.



Not the exception, but the rule.



Everywhere on the planet, within every type of animal, diversity is the rule. If it applies to all life on our planet, it must follow that this maxim probably applies to other planets in the universe as well.



Most scientists believe the universe is infinite.



If I were a religious man, I would assume that since this pattern seems to run through every aspect of everything there is into infinity, that it is the overriding principle by which the universe is governed. It would only follow that if I believe in a Supreme Being capable of creating something like a universe, and observing this pattern that seems to flow through everything into infinity, I would also have to assume this pattern to be deliberate and conscious act of engineering on the part of that Being.



It would seem that if a Being built something like a universe with that principle as its overriding design element, that that Being would think ithe presence said princlple to be self-evident, and would probably, in the interests of the design working the way it was intended, insist such a principle be observed and respected.



If I were a religious man, it would give me a reason to stop and question my thoughts and actions.





If I were a religious man, thinking about the implications of the incalculable amount of diversity, Divinely Inspired, I would not only be pained by just how this universal foundation is unobserved and disrespected, I would marvel at the frequency in which we defecate upon it.



We have rebelled and continue rebel against it in big ways, exterminating groups within our own species through slavery, war and genocide.



We have also desecrated it in small ways, one group marginalizing, stereotyping and legislating other groups to the fringes, reserving humane and just treatment for themselves alone.



We hate each other for our differences and make each other suffer for it. In doing so, we are heedless (at best) or contemptuous (at worst) of the fundamental precept of existence as reflected in every visible facet of the universe (or if you prefer, Creation).



Diversity is the rule.



If I were a religious man, believing that this pattern of diversity is a Divinely Inspired universal norm, I would think its desecration in these ways, both big and small, to be the most fundamental of sins.



If I were a religious man, I would wonder where that puts our species in the grand scheme of things. I would wonder for how much longer a Supreme Being who created such a vast and vastly diverse universe will allow the existence of a species so contemptuous and intolerant of the most basic, ever-present and self-evident aspect of the Creation itself. I would also wonder how such a Being might set about correcting the situation>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"Considering your acts aren't any better no matter how much you may love your girlfriend or wife it doesn't change the fact that there is grace to cover all sin even heterosexuality."


I agree with this. What have I said that disagrees with this?



"Because the Bible does not state that homosexuality is a sin. Period."



Bologna, and my proof is not from Leviticus.



"If I were to believe that consumption of alcohol was immoral, I would realize that the only person's intake I can control is mine. "



That's fine, but you would have no scriptural or ethical backing for your claim. I might say that wearing blue socks should be illegal, it doesn't mean that using heroin should be legal.



"If gay marriage becomes a legal reality in the United States, it will have absolutely no bearing on how straight people go about their lives."



So why place any restrictions on marriage at all? Why not allow marrying one's brother or sister? I ask because, there is no logical difference, and yet a number of people are going to get huffy because I made the comparison. Why do they get huffy? Because it would be morally wrong to marry your sister. Obviously so. So it is with marrying a member of the same sex.>

mykull · 3 years ago

"Because the Bible does not state that homosexuality is a sin. Period."


Kevin S. "Bologna, and my proof is not from Leviticus."



Kevin, please cite your proof.



Also, I'd really like to know your answers to these questions I posted.



Are you aware that the Bible has been translated several times over, and that in its hundreds of years of history selective quotes have been used against certain groups?



Are you aware that just a few decades ago

scripture was used to outlaw interracial marriage?



Are you aware that before that the Bible was used to justify slavery?



If you are aware of the above, how do you now explain that interracial marriage and slavery are no longer condemned?>

mykull · 3 years ago

Kevin S.: "So why place any restrictions on marriage at all? Why not allow marrying one's brother or sister? I ask because, there is no logical difference, and yet a number of people are going to get huffy because I made the comparison. Why do they get huffy? Because it would be morally wrong to marry your sister. Obviously so. So it is with marrying a member of the same sex."


Wow, you really need to take a Logic 101 class. There are so many holes and inconsistencies in this line of reasoning it's really quite stunning.>

Robert · 3 years ago

mykull, you are definitely right about the Logic 101 thing.


If anyone is going to begin to quote scriptures at gay men here, please consider that many of us have come from your own religious ranks, we have the same education in biblical languages you might have, we know the rules of textual criticism and biblical interpretation just like you, ad we have experienced the same salvation experience you have...and we will not tolerate using hate arguments without proper citation for your views.



And please remember - this comment blog is not about whether gay people are sinful or not...this is about Ted Haggard and his sins of adultery, deception, and illegal drug use.



Once again, do not make me or my gay brothers and sisters into a scapegoat for the sins of others.



Check the hate.

Check your heart.

Check the words of Jesus.

WWJD>

Payshun · 3 years ago

Kevin,


That's the thing I really don't understand. You are ok w/ your sin and the grace you get while being married but you are absolutely against anyone else sharing in that same grace.



The fact is everyone shares in that grace and will continue to. For some that will mean sexually transmitted diseases, hooking up w/ prostitutes or other dangerous consequences or some will experience a monogamous relationship where two people learn to love themselves and deal w/ their insecurities.



It really doesn't change if those two people share the same genitilia or not the reality is gay or straight couples will go thru this. So why not allow it? We allow straight people to get married even though many of them should not (as evidenced by the divorce rate.)



So again my question is why is your grace in heterosexual union ok while the grace gay people recieve in homosexual union not ok? If both are equally broken then why is one recieving more penalities and societal scorn?



p>

Matt Channing · 3 years ago

Kevin--


Actually, the ethics are inherent in my claim itself.



Ultimately, as is the case with alcohol, if heroin was legal, that would not automatically mean I would have to buy and inject it. I could exercise my right to not take heroin, view its consumption as immoral, and not participate.



Others are committing what I feel to be a sin, but I'm not.



The ethics breach would occur if proponents of the legalization of heroin tried to make a provision in the law that says NOT taking heroin would be illegal.



At that point, the law would be unethical, and probably immoral because it is insisting I violate the dictates of my own concience.







My "ethical backing" comes from a guy named Aristotle, who, by the way, invented the term "ethics".



If swinging my fist ends at the tip of your nose, I have committed no ethical or moral breach.



So, to that end, as creepy as I find the idea of siblings marrying, ultimately how does this happenning affect me personally, or my relationship to God?



I'm not the one marrying a sibling, or another man. Nor am I being forced to. Even if either was legal, nobody is making me break my religious beliefs insisting I participate.



If I chose to, I could continue believing both to be sins, and refuse.



As for others who choose a different course of action, that is between them and their Maker.



Not between them, their maker and me.



In fact, how another person behaves in his or her private life has nothing to do with me.



Minding someone else's business is highly unethical in an Aristotilian sense, because it deprives a person of their free will, and by extension, engage in moral choice.





There is a Buddhist proverb--"Never ride another man's horse".>

Pastor C · 3 years ago

Robert,
You are cool! Well said. Thanks!>

Donny · 3 years ago

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage anywhere in the Bible.


Go secular all you want, but stop the Christian bashing intolerance meted out against people that know the truth of the Bible.



Marriage is a man and a woman . . . so taught by Christ Jesus.



LGBT? Go over to Humanism for your quest to be fulfilled.>

James in ottawa. · 3 years ago

I too have been watching this thread closely since this story broke and until now haven t had a whole lot to add. You all seem to have a lot to say. This is healthy. The bible is a rich compendium of voices each passionately and even competitively advocating for their own part in the truth. This is prime among the reasons why literalist attempts at interpretation are so divisive and brittle they do so at the expense of suppressing parts of the difficult dialogue that is the foundation of scripture. If in living the Word we collectively become more Christ-like, I expect our conversations can also become more Word-like passionate, but also passionately united. None of us has a lock on the entirety of Christian experience so we should rely on the experiences of others to fill in some of the gaps in our own experience. Please listen to (read) one another carefully and measure the tone of your own posts also. I expect some of the voices, both liberal and conservative who might have posted, have been watching from the sidelines with a great deal to share beyond mere argument.


Thank you, Robert for your beautiful initial post. Your experiences are close to mine and to my heart. Of the many gay/ lesbian friends I have I am one of a rare few, it seems, whose threadbare faith has survived our experience of the church. Watching Ted Haggard s denials and evasions has been an excruciating experience for those who have at one time lived in the church and in the closet at the same time.



For the straight among us, and especially the conservative straight who so often seem incurious: I can t begin to describe to you the absurdity and pain of having persons of authority describe what those people over there are like when you are, in fact, sitting right in front of them with the rest of the congregation. Worse still, nobody asked you what you are like and those people over there sound pretty horrible and nothing like you! And then the kicker: It s so taboo you aren t supposed to talk about it especially not openly.



If someone in a conservative church takes a hard-line anti-gay stance there is no available example to check their assumptions against. [We ve left for other churches, just plain left or are doing everything we can to pass as another one of the flock.] There is no one with real lived experience and real knowledge able to test or help direct this person s conviction. In the most tragic cases this person, taking this hard line stance and perpetuating our worst fears about how bad these people can be, is in fact describing his own experience in all its tragedy and horror and applying it to all gays and lesbians out there. And until the scandal strikes no one can see that side of it either.



This is not a shot at Ted Haggard, however, while the rest of the world was shocked, almost everyone I know who is gay or lesbian just rolled their eyes. For us it s d j vu. There s a stereotype out there of the philandering closet-case gay opponent/ gay basher out there for a reason. We ve seen a lot of them. The specifics of Pastor Ted s undisclosed indiscretion don t matter I don t want to know. The pattern is too familiar.



So with all that set-up, I m back to my original point kind of. KEEP TALKING! But more importantly, keep listening and, when you can, work to make opportunities for others to share. I was really heartened to see an interview with Richard Cizik (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06304...) on reuters calling for evangelicals to work on opportunities to dialogue and work together on common interests with gays and lesbians. I think both sides will be in for a few surprises.>

BFD · 3 years ago

Very interesting reading.


It seems Kevin spews the same line over and over, but when challenged, refuses to offer up an HONEST answer.



I see some very good questions posed by Matt and others.



I am still waiting to hear if it is OK to have oral sex with my wife?



Also, I would really like to see the actual biblical quotes these Fundamental Extremists use to support the fervent anti-gay message they put forth.



Please note that I mentioned my "wife" (and that means I am her "husband") so this isn't some "extremist Gay" pushing his or her "agenda" on you. (Please also note I am not labeling Gays as Extremist. I will point out, however, that it seems all sides hve extremists these days. Fighting fire with fire?)



I don't actually see the problem with marrying one's sister. I sure as hell wouldn't marry ANY ONE of my FIVE sisters, but if someone wants to do it, what's the problem?



Oh, you say it's not "the norm", or perhaps not "acceptable"?

Who are you to say what's "normal" or "acceptable"?



Does Kevin have a scripture to quote that bans marrying ones sister?



OOPS, I FORGOT, Kevin REFUSES to answer up with any ACTUAL SCRIPTURE that would support the hysteria these Fundmental Extremists have whipped up these last many years.



I come from the old school, traditional Protestant Church. They don't do a whole lot of "thumping" about morality. Perhaps because these versions of Christianity are far more MATURE than this Fundamentalist crap that is being shoved in our faces these days.



I do hope Kevin and his type will some day wake up and realize that there is really no person on earth worth hating. Oh, I forgot, Kevin (and his type) don't "hate".



But they do.



And they do so VERY PUBLICLY, and VERY LOUDLY, all the while claiming that they are not.



And the Fundies wonder why so many on the "outside" consider them hypocrites?



Kevin, I am sorry to pick on you, I could (perhaps should) just as easily use "Jessie" or some other name to represent the TOXIC "Stinkin' Thinkin' " that is going on here. Please do not take it personally.



As someone said above, Jesus NEVER used the word "but" in his teachings, so to say, you love the sinner, BUT is actually Anti-Christ thinking.



Jesus was, and still is, a VERY RIGHTEOUS DUDE.



People who spend more time trying to interpret the Word of God than actually LIVING the Word of God are perhaps the TRUEST incarnation of the Devil himself. In fact, if I were to believe in a Devil, I would say that he is doing his BEST WORK in the House of the Fundamental / "Evangelical" movement.





My last question to the "Kevins" and "Jessies" out there is:



How much time do YOU spend serving "God's Children"? I am not talking about serving "your own", I am referring to the sick, the homeless, the mentally ill. THESE are God's Children.



And I am not asking about your "prayers", that is taking the lazy way out. No, how many times have you PERSONALLY REACHED OUT to one who is significantly less fortunate than yourself?



Your silence is telling.>

Daniel · 3 years ago

Kevin & Robert:


Robert, thank you for sharing your experience with us. I myself have found that my gay friends can be every bit as holy and sinful as I can, and have found no difference between the kind of love two people can feel for one another base on chromosomes any more than it is based on melanin in the skin. I am concerned that the very idea that biological design determines who you are allowed by God to love most deeply makes a mockery of what love really is - a way of relating to others in which their lives and needs are placed higher than you own and an unconditional commitment of the Self. Love is not sex, love is not a feeling, and love is not an addiction. I have a hard time editing that concept to make it conditional on anatomy, whether we're talking agape or eros. Thhat's why I refuse to go to a church that does not welcome LBG members with open arms, open minds, and open hearts. (I am Episopalian but this Methodist motto has one my sincere admiration.)



Kevin, I understand where you are coming from - since we are sinful people then our natural impulses aren't necessarily morally right. Just because I feel like I'm suppsed to be gay doesn't mean I really should be any more than feeling like I need excesses of alcohol means I should consume them. For you, the Bible is our guide for morality and Paul very clearly says homosexuality is essentially an abomination. You'd like us to be clear about right and wrong behavior even if while we love others in Christ - love has to be tough sometimes for our own good.



But I would like you to filter your thoughts through Christian history and experience: "Slaves, obey your master...." (Eph 6:5-8). If we would hang our hats on commandments of Paul we would still support slavery. If you do, in fact, support slavery as a righteous institution then I believe we have a far more fundamental discussion coming. However, if you think slavery is wrong then there is absolutely no way to reconcile these two without conceding that Paul was not delivering a new Law for all time to all people. His epistles are directed to a specific audience of a specific time and place - we are not that audience. We've had 2,000 years of teh Holy Spirit working on us and She's still going strong.



That doesn't mean we throw it all out. It means our job is far more complex than merely reading the NIV/King James Bible and applying it verbatim. We have tradition, experience, and theology that enter the conversation. What I have come to believe is that Jesus' "fulfilling" of the law, which an Israeli friend assures me means he was interpreting it correctly for them, means that the important thing about sin is not the action itself but what the action does to the state of our Soul. I have met homosexuals whose lifestyle is an idol - being gay is their entire identity, no room for God in there anywhere. Ironically, this is only true for my gay friends who were raised to believe homosexuality was depraved deviance. But I also know homosexuals who, I am convinced, walk with Christ in a way in which I have only thus far read about.



It's fine to hold onto the letter of scripture and tradition as we move forward, but we must always do so in the knowledge that we are human, that we might be, and likely are, wrong about any given particular point. God hasn't changed but we have and still are....>

Daniel · 3 years ago

Correction.... That auto-emoticon should have been an 8 and a closed parenthesis to indicate the passage is Ephesians 6:5-8. Sorry!>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"That's the thing I really don't understand. You are ok w/ your sin and the grace you get while being married but you are absolutely against anyone else sharing in that same grace."


If those are the words you want to put in my mouth, that is fine. I am not denying anyone grace, but rather indicating the need for it.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"It seems Kevin spews the same line over and over, but when challenged, refuses to offer up an HONEST answer."


Huh?



"I am still waiting to hear if it is OK to have oral sex with my wife?"



Yes.



"

Also, I would really like to see the actual biblical quotes these Fundamental Extremists use to support the fervent anti-gay message they put forth."



Romans 1: 26-27, among others, though I don't concede you idea that I am a fundmental extremist.



"so this isn't some "extremist Gay" pushing his or her "agenda" on you."



You are putting extremist gay in quotes, as though someone here has used that term. You're whacking a strawman.



"I don't actually see the problem with marrying one's sister."



This is the logically consistent position.



"Who are you to say what's "normal" or "acceptable"?"



That's why I brought up scriptures. Outside of that, I'm still not pro-incest. It is wrong, and it is abnormal.



"And they do so VERY PUBLICLY, and VERY LOUDLY, all the while claiming that they are not. "



If you say so.



"Kevin REFUSES to answer up with any ACTUAL SCRIPTURE "



Just did.



"Please do not take it personally."



Other than the fervent supporter of hatred bit, I don't see anything personal.



"you love the sinner, BUT is actually Anti-Christ thinking."



Are you arguing that Christ did not hate sin? Have you read the Bible?



"

People who spend more time trying to interpret the Word of God than actually LIVING the Word of God are perhaps the TRUEST incarnation of the Devil himself."



That doesn't mean we should make NO effort to interpret the Bible before living it.



"And I am not asking about your "prayers", that is taking the lazy way out. "



I disagree that prayers are the lazy way out. This is not backed up by Jesus actions. Jesus healed the poor by praying over them. At any rate, I am not going to brag about my good deeds in this forum.



"Your silence is telling."



Well, when I learn how to read minds, I will make an effort to respond to your queries while you are writing them.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"If we would hang our hats on commandments of Paul we would still support slavery."


Paul does not command us to take slaves.



"If you do, in fact, support slavery as a righteous institution then I believe we have a far more fundamental discussion coming. "



Slavery is untenable in the modern era, so any conversation would inherently be tainted by our understanding of cultural norms, and our experience with the practice. I wouldn't want my daughter to get married off at the age of 12 either, but the Bible does not forbid that. It doesn't command it either.



The examples you provide do not justify disobedience to a command in scripture. We can read the bible through a modern lens, but that does not give us the liberty to pick and choose that which we ought to obey. What if we decided that helping the poor was no longer relevant? What else could we throw out?>

Matt Channing · 3 years ago

Now Kevin is determining who among us needs grace....


What hubris.



While I'm here, I should like to further address Kevin's concern over the imposition of new "moral norms".



In a previous post, I pointed out that to impose a moral norm is to force the participation of those who choose not to comply.



I pointed out that since nobody was forcing him to marry a man, that nobody was imposing anything on him.



I'd like to write a little bit about "moral norms" of the past.



From about 1492 up until about 1864, Europeans and Americans of European descent justified slavery on MORAL grounds. Because they believed themselves to be inherently superior to the "colored" races of the world, they believed it was their MORAL duty to exert dominion over them.



Ever hear the phrase "White man's burden?"



It was a term cooked up by white people which meant that it was the moral duty of white people to control the other races of the world for their own good.



It was how the American south justified slavery, and how the British justified their Empire.



From where did white people claim to have received their authority? Why directly from God, of course...



They could even cite Scripture that "proved" it.



The presence of this idea throughout much of the literature of the past (Read the Constitution of the Conferderate States of America if you want to laugh incredulously), shows that this idea was almost uniformly accepted by most white people as commanded by God, and therefore A MORAL IMPERITIVE.



During the 19th century, white America pushed further and further west. Why?



Because, it was, they were convinced, a moral imperitive, commanded by God, that our country be wrested from the hands of "savages" and stretch from one ocean to the other.



In our moral zeal, we almost succeeded in making an entire race of people extinct.



Racism was the norm, and was considered moral for centuries.



Was this "moral norm" really moral at all?



Most people would say no, and that we were wrong to ever allow ourselves to believe it.



Did the abolition of slavery create a new "moral norm"?



No. A new moral attitude evolved slowly, and little by little changed the way most people thought.



Sometimes "moral norms" need to be replaced. Sometimes "moral norms" shouldn't be "norms" because they are inherently immoral.



It could be argued that any idea that keeps any group of people on the margins of their society is inherently immoral.



It could be that any idea that justifies unjust treatment of others is inherently immoral.



It could certainly be argued that anybody who uses his or her religion to justify the two practices mentioned above is both immoral and unethical.>

mykull · 3 years ago

Daniel, Thank you for your wonderful post.


Kevin S., could you please cite your proof of the Bible outlawing homosexuality? You said you had a lot more proof than just in Leviticus.>

Donny · 3 years ago

Gays need to find their path some place other than forcing Christians to believe in homosexuality.


There is nothing in the Bible to support the agreeing with gays and lesbians in the way they want to forever change Christian truth.



Haggard did what was right and when caught, admitted his wrongdoing.



Now gays and lesbians have a leader ro follow in repenting of homosexual behavior.>

Donny · 3 years ago

Kevin S.


Name one place in the Bible that supports homosexuality to be engaged in?>

Daniel · 3 years ago

Donny, mykull, etc.


Just a point of information, the keystone scripture marshalled against homosexuality is from Paul, in Romans 1:27:



In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.



Of course, he continues a few verses later (Romans 2:1):



You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

I guess I can get a little personal too. I have always been pretty left of center but I think my friend's story needs to be told because it will shed some light on why I feel the way I do and the self- destructive impulses this brand of Christian righteousness brings in the sufferer.


I had the pleasure of meeting a wonderfel man a few years ago. He was not my lover and I had no sexual feelings for him whatsover. As a matter of fact he became my disciple and then my best friend.



His love and compassion helped save my life on numerous occasions as I have suffered from debiltating set of diseases. I have severe ashtma and allergies and if not careful can develop full blown pnuemonia in three days.



There was a point in time where I would walk into a hospital and the dr's would routinely say "We don't know why you are not in the ICU" or "we can't do anything for you; your body is just going to have to get over on your own."



Now mind you I had full blown pneumonia, acute sinusitis, upper respitory infections, and I forgetting what else and the only person I could talk to about it was Travis.



He more than any person (include my parents) gave me the will to live as the disease was painful and the subsequent recovery even more so. So I fought and he counselled and loved me. Cut to a few years later and he develops really strong feelings for me.



I didn't have a problem w/ this as I am not really judgemental and I didn't really care. But his feelings got in the way of what we were trying to do for our Father's kingdom. (We had goals we revitalizing the inner city, creating good, honest and realistic films, traveling the world, helping the poor...)A person can't have a co-dependent disciple and mentee trying to get them to sleep w/ them.



That just won't work.



Well eventually he could not deal w/ the pain of living w/ these feelings and chose to end is his life in suicide. That was nearly two years ago and the pain of having to come to grips w/ my loss is debilitating.



He was my Jonathon. Humans rarely get that type of friendship in life and yet God gave it to me. he learned to hate to himself because of the destructive repressive Christian society that many of us are talking about right now.



I weep as I write this because as I write this I know that so many of you out there will never know the pain that others have gone thru, the darkness that leads to such self hatred because your sexuality is labeled ok.



You get to lust and objectify women all in the privacy of your own head never feeling the absolute weight of that most ingredious sin because society from birth says its' all right.



You don't have to repress your emotions about that to the same degree that same sex sufferers do and that's evil. I don't care if who one chooses to sleep w/. It's not important to me.



But I do care about loving and healing relationships. I do care about loss and loving people for who they are and never drawing distinctions because those distinctions killed the love of my life.



Those distinctions created such devastation in his mind that he would not deal w/ reality. He would not accept the beauty and greatness of our friendship.



So for the new Tedd Haggard's of the world please understand what your theology of love the man hate the sinner does to one such as Travis. He was my beloved, I was never into him sexually but that theology destroyed his life. It isn't just him, there are millions of people around the world that learn to hate themselves because of this brand of Christianity.



Jesus would destroy the temple first before allowing anyone to be excluded from the grace and love of God. He cleared out the outer ring because the Gentiles could not come and pray.



What do you think he is going to do the church knowing it stops gays and others from coming to the table?



God help me to forgive those like Kevin and Jessie because they really don't know what they do. They don't know that the religion they follow leads to death and not love.



God is love and he heals. That's one of his titles Yaweh-Rapha. God is my healer but you two have offered no healing, no love, no acceptance because of other's sins. God doesn't care about sin the way you do and I thank Him for that because I would be dead w/o it.



Just look at the prodigal, the son never repents, never acknowledges his sin, never even apologizes for saying "Father you are dead to me." and yet the The father in his infinite and endearing love runs down the street holding his robes and loves his bastard non repentant son.



That's the love of the father and you two and others like you would do well to know more intimately than you do.



p>

Daniel · 3 years ago

kevin,


Paul does not command us to take slaves.... Slavery is untenable in the modern era, so any conversation would inherently be tainted by our understanding of cultural norms, and our experience with the practice.



Here you say two interesting things:



(1) Your and my readings of the Bible cannot be separated from our cultural lenses.



(2) Our cultural lenses are not the same as the lens through which these words werw written.



That's a very important premise on which we completely agree.



However, we disagree on your relativising of slavery. Will you agree with me that slavery is inherently wrong and always has been?



If not then I would very much like to take up our discussion about the Iraq war in which you justified it by saying Saddam was a tyrant. Is that justification merely cultural, or would you agree that tyranny is objectively wrong?



The examples you provide do not justify disobedience to a command in scripture. We can read the bible through a modern lens, but that does not give us the liberty to pick and choose that which we ought to obey. What if we decided that helping the poor was no longer relevant? What else could we throw out?



The fact that we might get it wrong by changing things does not mean it isn't wrong in the first place.



Reading is never objective it can only be subjective. We read things in the way we already understand the world. I believe Paul's critique of pagan Roman culture found in Romans is good through and through. But that comes from a few years of studying Latin and being a fan of classical history. Paul ties the sexuality of the Romans to idol worshipping. And when we look at a town like Pompeii, which entirely revolved around sexual freedom, we can see his point. But if we were to look at Minoan Crete we would see something altogether different in a similar culture. Paul simply didn't have the benefit of hindsight - he lived in at the Greco-Roman world as it happened.



The original apostles did not agree with Paul's theology (Galatians 2) and the only indication we have that they resolved this dispute (Galatians 1, Acts 15) indicates they shared several central ideas: (1) Jesus Christ is Lord, (2) helping the poor is the central Christian practice, and (3) Christianity was at great risk from pagan cultural practices tied into idol worship (Acts 15:29).



Ironically, in Acts 15:10-11, the Apostolic Council decided that the God-breathed Scriptures of the Torah were no longer binding because they were too hard to follow....



I read the Bible as a book written by ancient believers to ancient believers. I do not read Paul as delivering an irrevocable Law to supplant the Torah. When I read about that Apostolic Council in Acts 15:10-11, it becomes extremely clear that is not the intention of the apostles.



Paul adapted his own readings and theology as the moment required in order to get these central tenets across (1 Corinthians 9:19-23):



Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.



One could say that he was being wishy-washy and throwing things out. He supported obedience to the Law when it suited him and let it go when it didn't. He was pickinga nd choosing from the Torah, so to speak. Paul is telling the Corinth Christians directly that these issues are irrelevant - what matters is Christ crucified, the new being in Christ Jesus. Anything that aids that is adminished, anything that gets in its way is diminished.



It is simply unnecessary to think that we must read every jot and tittle as infallible or else there are simply no standards for evaluation. If that were true, we couldn't read the news, get a weather report, use and encyclopedia - our foundation for all of these things is not certainty, but faith. I have faith that you are Kevin, that certain things you tell me are accurate, etc. I might be wrong. But still I choose to believe, act, and live as if this were true. It's a risk I am willing to take.>

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Ok I just need to say this before I get ready to vote. But this is an actual discussion. Who knew it could happen?


p>

Daniel · 3 years ago

Addendum:


Also, note that Paul says in Timothy that the Tanakh is "inspired by God" (Theopneustos) but reads the Torah as no longer authoritative because Christ freed us from the Law. Hard for me to think he'd have a hard time reconciling the thought that Scriptures are inspired but laws are only guides for the condition of our souls and not intended to be important in and of themselves.>

mykull · 3 years ago

Donny: "Gays need to find their path some place other than forcing Christians to believe in homosexuality."


First, you are assuming that I and others who are standing up to your bigotry are not Christians. In my case and of others on here, you are sorely mistaken. I am a life-long Christian.



Second, homosexuality is not something you do or do not believe in. It just is. Homosexuality is a part of all nature--human and animal alike--and has existed since the beginning of civilization. It will not ever go away, because it is part of God's natural plan. The more you try to banish it or try to wish away its existence, the more serious suffering you will create among your own brethren (as you have with Ted Haggard).



Third, no one is forcing you to do or believe anything. People here are sticking up for themselves and saying Enough, stop bashing gays and lesbians based on your willfully misleading interpretation of the Bible. It is the fundamentalists who are forcing others to live according to their own rules.



I personally do not care what you believe, Donny. But when you continually use the Bible to demonize and condemn me, when you use the Bible to strip me of my basic rights as an equal, tax-paying citizen in this country, you can bet I'm going to stand up for myself--and for my fellow brethren. We will no longer serve as your scapegoat, your demonized other, your second-class citizens. We are all equals in God's eyes.



"There is nothing in the Bible to support the agreeing with gays and lesbians in the way they want to forever change Christian truth."



What Christian truth would that be, Donny? To love your neighbor? To not judge and condemn others?



"Haggard did what was right and when caught, admitted his wrongdoing. Now gays and lesbians have a leader ro follow in repenting of homosexual behavior."



Yes, he admitted to his drug use and his adultery, both sins. But he does not need to repent for his homosexuality. If the fundamentalists are going to escort him back into the closet, no matter how much he tries he will never be able to pray the gay away. Jesus made Ted and the rest of us as we are. Ted needs to love himself as he is, and his brethren need to support him with that same love. As it is, you have so loudly and for so long yelled at the top of your lungs about the evils of homosexuality, to the point that the homsexuals within your own churches have to hide themselves out of fear and self-loathing.



So I ask you again, where in the Bible is homosexuality listed as a sin? Don't you wonder why Jesus Christ never taked about it?>

mykull · 3 years ago

Typo: Make that, "Don't you wonder why Jesus Christ never talked about it?">

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

Donny,


"Gays need to find their path some place other than forcing Christians to believe in homosexuality."



Ya mean like believing in left-handedness? Or like believing in red-headedness? Homosexuality IS. It's kinda hard not to "bleive" in it, as opposed to 'believing' in Santa Claus.



And how can anyone "force" anyone else to believe something, other than thru logic?



"the way they want to forever change Christian truth."



And WHICH "Christian truth" would taht be? The one about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you? That is, after all, the sum of the laws and the prophets. Nope, don't want to change that, 'cuz it would mean that you don't really want to be treated in the same way that you treat God's gay and lesbian children - namely, with thuggish contempt and hate. Nope, ain't gonna succumb. You be the spiritual gay basher for the whole board, I guess. Peace to you anyway.>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"Now Kevin is determining who among us needs grace...."


Well, we all do, and not by my determining. Either way, homosexuality is a sin. It is not judgment to say that something is a sin. Note that I have not said so-and-so will not go to heaven. Using certain drugs is a sin, but that doesn't mean I harbor ill-will toward those who use drugs.>

Larry Brother · 3 years ago

"None are righteous, no not one." My prayer is that this scandal will allow us to reconsider the role of the church in the culture war. Each of us (followers of Jesus) are the church! "What would Jesus do?" He seems most concerned with my heart as I've spent time with Him. He's called me to disciple and love others who He's placed in my life. I've said something similar to what Haggard said, "There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life." It wasn't until the light of Jesus shined on those dark places that I was free...and it was long after I accepted Jesus! Jesus showed me laws were a heavy burden to carry...whereas I've found His yoke to be easy and His burden to be light>

kevin s. · 3 years ago

"However, we disagree on your relativising of slavery. Will you agree with me that slavery is inherently wrong and always has been?"


Sure.



"Is that justification merely cultural, or would you agree that tyranny is objectively wrong? "



Sure.



I'll have to delve into the remainder of the discussion later. It's election day, after all...>

JAY HOLMES · 3 years ago

perhaps this show that homosexually is not a "sin"..but a God given gift to some people. and that these people are loving, God loveing, kind, responsible people who want be free from discrimantion.


the only 'sin' being committed is calling homosexully a sin.



Haggard can help the entire world by embracing his homosexuality and teaching others that it is not 'sick' or sinfull living.>

mykull · 3 years ago

Kevin S.: "Either way, homosexuality is a sin."


Kevin, what is your biblical proof for this? This is the 3rd time I've asked.



You have dodged dozens of questions and points from previous commenters, because I think you don't know how to answer them. All you do is repeat is what you've been brainwashed to believe: "homosexuality is a sin.">

Payshun · 3 years ago

Look all human sexuality is sinful. Can we please get passed calling it a sin now? Everything that man does will end in death. That's what happens since the fall. So please let's move on.


p>

Married, Faithful and HAPPY · 3 years ago

As a god loving (not god fearing) straight male, faithful to my wife of 15 years, I say:


"My marriage has NEVER needed 'defending', most certainly not at the hands of BIGOTS".







The Kevins and Jessies seem to parrot the lines they are fed.



Poor souls.



God designed an evolutionary process that has allowed we humans to fly above the eagles, swim with the fishies in the deep blue sea, and do so many truly wonderful things with our gift of life here on earth.



And here we have these people like Jessie and Kevin, who were given the same gift of wonderful life, yet all they can do is focus on other people's "sin", posting the same redundant crap over and over and over again.



If the Kevins and Jessies of our world would learn to think on their own we would have much less of this crap. Sad as it is, they cannot, or will not.



The collective bigotry, which they vehemently deny while simultaneously dishing out even more hate and bigotry has harmed more people than I even imagined.



There are some very heartwrenching stories here of destruction done to others lives.



And for what?



So that the Kevins and Jessies of our world can feel better about themselves?



What baffles me more than anything is the point made above regarding (I think it was Kevin S statement re:) "forcing Christians to believe in homosexuality".



What a load of crap!



It is these self righteous "Christians" who are trying to force others to believe as they do, not the other way around.



It is these self righteous "Christians" who waste their god-given gift of life trying to force THEIR agenda down our society's throat.



No Jessie and Kevin, no one here is trying to "force" you to "believe" anything.



Go ahead and believe anything you want. Just do this world a favor and KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!



Don't try to legislate your "morality" into our society.



Don't try to force your beliefs onto us.



You may not believe that is what you are doing, but it is. If in fact you don't believe you are trying to force your beliefs on society, then why on earth do you keep this crap up?



It doesn't matter what the bible says, when you get down to it, because the bible exists to tell the YOU what to do with YOUR life.



The bible was not written so that YOU can tell ME what to do with MY life.>

mess11ier · 3 years ago

All I have to say is this: if people would stop creating their own interpretation of the Bible, then the world would have a lot less problems and be a lot better place to live.


I quote: [taken from godkind.org]

"You can't pick and choose scripture to support your personal opinion or belief or wish. It either ALL comes from God as inspired, or NONE of it is. WHY? Because to accept anything less leaves the decision as to WHAT part to believe and accept and which part to ignore WITH THE INDIVIDUAL."

"THIS ALLOWS EVERYONE TO DO THAT WHICH IS RIGHT IN THEIR OWN eyes, BASED ON THEIR OWN INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS."



Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."



POINT: The above scriptures make it clear that homosexuality is being discussed. There is NO room for negotiation on what God is stating. However, it needs to be understood that the sin of homosexuality isn't a sin worse than other sins. SIN IS SIN and ANY sin carries with it the death penalty, unless repented of. Despite homosexual tendencies, the PRACTICE of homosexuality, unless repented of and fought till death, will lead to eternal death - cessation of the soul life forever.



Homosexuality and lesbianism are wrong belief systems, just like any other sin explained in the Bible. They are deviations of the human mind, just like the sin of theft, murder, hate, coveting, lust, etc., that lead to death for any one of us.



***excerpts taken from***

">http://godkind.org/homosexual.html>

Daniel · 3 years ago

Married, faithful, and HAPPY:


From the traditional point of view, calling it bigotry to oppose homosexuality is like calling it bigotry to oppose alcoholism or greed, you see? Rightly so - if homosexuality is, in fact, sinful then not accepting it as okay makes perfect sense and isn't discrimination. I'm afraid that tossing about labels like 'bigot' and suggesting conservatives aren't thinking for themselves misses the point entirely and almost puts the kabash on further discussion. Remember,



Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.



Matthew 5:44b-48



I find Kevin and Jessie very reasonable. I'm grateful for their openness to continue a dialogue even when several of us engage them at once - which is a very difficult thing to do sometimes. They're far from abusing or persecuting anyone.



I disagree with Kevin, but I will listen to his point of view. Part of thinking for yourself and being open minded is always knowing that (1) I might be wrong and (2) other people are just as real as I am regardless of my judgments of their correctness.>

Daniel · 3 years ago

mess11ier,


Deuteronomy tells us to take an eye for an eye, which Jesus contradicts directly in Matthew 5. That pretty much roils the idea that Levitical Law is infallible.



But if you can scale that obstacle, there's all sorts of regulations about eating unclean foods, that it is okay to rape a woman if you offer marriage, and that women must stay away from church for a month and then sacrifice a goat after having a child or else she will be tortured and destroyed. Leviticus even tells us not to wear a garment made of two cloths. I seriously hope you're out there attacking people with the 'belief system' that cotton blends are benign.



I'd like to engage your theology. Here's why I toss out prohibitions on homosexuality:



1. We are no longer bound by the Mosaic Law of teh Torah (Acts 15:10-11).



2. Paul does not say that homosexuality is always wrong.



3. Paul does not deliver a new Law.



4. Paul is culturally conditioned and was writing to people at risk of joining Greco-Roman cults. The critique of pagan Romans in Romans 1 is pretty clearly designed to defend against attrition to the cults of the Bacchae and Apollo, which were very similar to Christianity in other respects. In 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 we learn that Paul adapts to his audience, a feature that shouldn't be thought to stop when he writes epistles. That's why each letter is different and there are few redundancies in Paul.



5. Jesus, in Matthew 5, reinterprets the Law to be about the state of the soul and not the physical, material world. Heterosexual or homosexual makes no difference in that respect.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

You also have to take into account the actual nature of the Kingdom itself. Gentiles (as I see no Messianiac Jews here) are now grafted into the kingdom of God in a way that many Jews never really were.


The Kingdom doesn't discriminate. If it could take a tax collecting Jewish traitor like Levi and mix him w/ a Jewish political dissident like Simon the Zealot there is more than enough room for anyone to be a part of the kingdom.



As for human sexuality guess what folks it's all sinful. Whoops did I say that outloud? Yep it's human, meaning it's mortal, meaning we all die. That means it's sinful. Heterosexuality, Celibacy, Homosexuality, Bisexuality and Transgedered sexuality are all full of the same human crap. We are broken people. I say this not add condemnation but to acknowledge a simple truth.



Human beings are complex, broken creatures that are sometimes codependent, mean spirited, selfish and downright evil. It doesn't matter what your sexual preference is in that regard because none us practice our sexuality perfectly. That is part of the death curse leveled against all mankind.



I am not saying that gay people are more cursed than anyone else or that straight people are righteous. I am saying that we are all f****ed. As long as we are human we will make mistakes.



The great thing about monogamy is that God gives grace in that to make mistakes and experience love and forgiveness. That's what we should all strive for.



Oh and before I forget The Straight Community has too much crap going on to be a light to the Homosexual Community and as such shoud shut up until they submit to more healing and integrity. The Kingdom is one w/ integrity, love, hope, and the other fruits of God's spirit. If that's not there then that means that the holy spirit is not manifesting his love in the lives of the church. That's a problem.



God hates hypocrisy and deception as much as idol worship. If that statement is true then guess who the father is going to judge worse when judgement comes? (I don't buy into that last statement but I know many of you evangelicals do. *wink*)



The gay community is going to recieve some healing and love from God because they were honest. the straight evangelical community is going to be rebuked because they lied. In the end I see God saying I will heal the broken hearted while condemning those that broke them.



p>

Anonymous · 3 years ago

Creation is broken. Everything in the universe atrophies and eventually dies and then is reconciled to the Creator...therefore eternal. Our behaviors are part of our brokenness. But if, as I believe, God works his will for his Creation through his Creation, then, for Christians at least, we have a responsibility to follow Jesus...the Way.
Homosexuality is natural in the sense that all of our behaviors are natural in light of our brokenness. Evil happens when can't acknowledge our state of being and allow be open to transformation by God's grace.>

Kevin K · 3 years ago

Sorry...the last comment was mine and I forgot to enter my name...Kevin K>

Deb · 3 years ago

My heart breaks for this man (Ted) and his family. Why does it break? Because I found out that I was the mother of a gay son.


My husband and I raised our children in an Evangelical home. We listened to Focus on the Family and were at many many Christian conferences all over the country. My son was at youth group & Sunday school every week. He went on many missions trips all over the country & out of the country. He was in Bible studies, and you get the picture......



When he was 18, I knew that something was bothering him and finally he said that he was gay, and was I going to kick him out of the house and not love him anymore. It breaks my heart that he could even think that. However, why would he think any differently. So many other "Christian" parents had done this to their children.



Living in our bubble we had believed everything we heard about homosexuals (from well meaning Christians). "They" were sexual deviants, child molesters, intrinsically flawed, would die of AIDS, have terrible lives, etc. etc. However, I always told my boys that regardless of anything that we should NEVER judge others because we do not walk in their shoes.



It was almost two years since I heard him utter those words, and my life has taken such a turn. I am no longer the mother of a child. I am now the mother of the "gay" kid. It is so odd that I am not allowed in this society to be happy for my son and all his accomplishments. If you have a son addicted to drugs or alcohol, gambling or whatever you are given hugs. Tell your church family that your son is gay and you become a leper. After all you probably caused him to become gay.



According to Dr. Dobson, we could have prevented it and possibly we caused it. Because of Dr. Dobson & his other Evangelical friends, I no longer believe in God. If there is a God surely He would never let people speaking for Him cause so many people so much heartache. On his website he said that the gay agenda had thrown bottles on his lawn in protest, and how awful it was. Imagine how awful it is to worry about your child dying or beaten up for being gay.



I have met so many gay people now & guess what? "They" come in every shape & size. "They" have the exact same hopes & dreams that we heterosexuals do. I wish people would remember that there are thousands & thousands of parents of LBGT children & one day the parents are going to come out of their closets & demand that our country gives them the same rights my other son is allowed.



My son is in his second year at a very good college on a scholarship. He is active in the LGBT community & I am proud of him and I will not let the Religious Right take away my love for him.>

Gary Lee Parker · 3 years ago

Yes, I agree with the log-term effects of the scandal with Ted Haggard. I believe the church has to address more and more the issue of sexuality of individual Christians and the community of Christians. I for one, by God's grace, have not struggled with my own sexuality, but I have struggled with, in the past, of being a celbate singe man before and after the divorce. I believe more and more that the church or fellowship of fellowers of Jesus to address in proper inclusiveness of people who remain single all of their lives or have become single do to circumstance in their lives.
Just as the Catholic church has to struggle with men who have been called to the priesthood who are also called to be married, the rest of Christiandom needs to look at the possibility that men and women called to full-time pastor ministry may be called to be celibate singles as well as called to be married. How does celibacy and marriage deal with the Christian lifestyle in the 21st century?>

Pat · 3 years ago

This is all amazing. Everything does come back to you...so as God says, be careful what you think, be careful what you say, be careful how you act. For the hypocrisy at some time will be revealed. I assume that since Ted was advising the President on Mondays, that the IRS is investigating Ted's churches non-profit status. Remember the all important separation of church and state. Also we need to remember that the bible is not accurate.>

William · 3 years ago

Maybe it's about time that the church come to grips with the fact that Jesus never condemned homosexuality. The church would also do well to come to realize that the children of Israel were desperately striving to increase their number in self defense. It's rather difficult to be fruitful and multiply in a homosexual relationship. The body politic and the body religious should note that it is not our position to condemn one another. That, my sisters and brothers, is the Lord's work.>

Kevin K · 3 years ago

We do great harm to our Christian faith by judging homosexuality as sin. I believe that those who feel that way do not really follow Christ. I realize that many thoughtful Christians believe that way, but I think they need to take their blinders off. Their God is too small.>

Juana · 3 years ago

Oh my, I'm late to this blog. Sorry I've missed so much fun. Two things: 1) I (most of the time) know not to put my faith in people. I have a collegue that reminds me "everybody lies". Clinton, Foley, Haggard, Kennedy blah, blah... "Where is God in this" is the question. I hope wrapping his loving arms around those Haggard kids.
and 2)Several years ago, two people I'd never met literally saved my life - Bishop John Shelby Spong & Rev. Sylvia Pennington - through their books. These books almost jumped off the shelf at me..it was such a God thing. These two "invited" me to take another look, to open my heart again to God like I did when I was a little girl. But this time, to have the innocence AND strength as an adult to have bigger God, a more REAL God (not the vending machine god who gave gold stars to the "blessed" and misery on the "bad ones"), a loving God. What a journey it is. Christian and a Lesbian - yep! It is so very important that Christians (and non-Christians) get it that kids are hurting - not counting the adults - wanting to experience God, but feeling like God played a very cruel trick...gave them a cross to bear that is unbearable. I believe we are born to seek God and our place as servants to God and fellow "man" here - kind of hard to do when you are fundamentally (no pun intended) flawed. I hate to infer seperation, but straight folks have NO idea what it is like to sit in church week after week as a young person (and adults of course) and hear that you (ok - they say "the behavior" but that is translated very personally) are an abomination. That cross is too much too bear - we're not talking about having blue eyes or brown hair, or being tall or short, fat or skinny. We're not talking about having a quirky personality, being a nerd or something having to do with "self-esteem". Sexuality is basic folks - a core issue. The internal self hate is deep...very deep.

So, my prayer is that we embrace our young people - love them UNCONDITIONALLY, and teach them REAL values like honesty, gratitude, compassion, love, tolerance, patience, etc. Where they go for partnership, love, companionship, and yes...sex - God will be there too.

Peace-

Juana>

Deb · 3 years ago

Juana, Well-stated. That is exactly what I taught my children. I think that so many people don't realize how young that many GBLT children are when they know that they are GBLT. It hurts me to my core that Dr. Dobson & his friends believe that my husband & I could have prevented my son from being gay or that he can change. How many conferences, Bible studies, church services did we sit through that we heard that homosexuality is an abomination. It has hurt so many young adults searching for God and wanting Him to love them. I am glad that you have been able to accept yourself for who you are.>

ju · 3 years ago

As someone who grew up in a very conservative church and family, where works, appearances, righteousness and heavy guilt I feel nothing but compassion for Rev. Haggard and others like him. Growing up in that type of community the ignorance of "reality" and of social justice, compassion, grace and mercy is so pervasive that I felt like I was Saul and I've been spending my whole life trying to unlearn and become whole. Yes God can do a great work throgh the Rev.'s sins, but what a costly price he and his family have had to pay. How can anyone be so mean spirited and find any joy in this.>

Kevin K · 3 years ago

Juana & Deb,


I really appreciate your comments. There is no joy in castigating Mr. Haggard. Though there may be some irony in it, but gaining some morbid satisfaction in his torment is just another instance from our pathetic homophobic society. I, too, have received spiritual nourishment from the likes of Spong, Borg, Crossan and others. Our family also includes GBLTs who struggled growing up in what must have seemed a hostile world. We are going through a "dark ages" in this area. Fifty years from now, we will look back on this time as we now look back on the racial strife of the 50's and 60's. I take hope in the fact that "this too shall pass". Thank you both again for your thoughtful comments.>

Payshun · 3 years ago

I am really angry, joy hardly, bitterness and pain yes. I find the idea that another one was a closet case scary and there is a form of satisfaction about his hypocrisy being known but I share no joy in this.


It's more fascination as a man can get so far only to fail. My God am I glad that God has disciplined and continues to break me because w/o that I would have fallen into the similar trap Haggard did. I could have chosen Christian legitmacy and self-hatred over God's love and struggle. Thank God for the mystical path. It really does weed people out w/ many safeguards.



I want him to give an apology. He owes it. But I know right now he has his own issues to deal w/. THe problem is his healing won't be complete until he does and of all the things that are going to be easiest to do in the next few months this would be it.



p>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

Payshun,


"Look all human sexuality is sinful."



ALL??? I hardly thnk so.



"Can we please get passed calling it a sin now?"



Aside from the fact that you jsut di, if we get past it, who will Donny and kevin s condemn and for what? ;{O)>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

mess11ier,


"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."



Your 'POINT': "The above scriptures make it clear that homosexuality is being discussed."



Clearly??? Shurely if one lies with a man AS ONE LIES WITH A WOMAN, then it is, in fact, BI-sexuality that is being discussed. Homosexual males have sex with other men and do NOT "lie with a woman" in any manner.



And perhaps that is the point of the original author - be true to your own nature and do not mess around. Homosexuals are homosexual by nature as surely as heterosexuals are heterosexual by nature.



(In actual fact, many biblical scholars believe that what was being discussed was cult temple prostitution. Others believe that the way men lay with women was to treat them as objects, to be owned and used; and that to treat men that way was, indeed, an 'abomination'. Much food for thought there. But it is hardly "clear" that the author was speaking of homosexuality, certainly not homosexuality as we understand it today - some 2,000+ years later. So tell us, to which century should we all crawl back and behave as if it were today's world?)>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

kevin s,


"[gay marriage] is used as a bludgeon to portray Christians as ignorant fools."



Um, many are ignorant fools. The issue is not needded to portray them that way, but it sure helps.



"the courts have used this as an opportunity to subert legislature in an attempt to impose their moral norms."



As opposed, of course, to you and your Church trying to impose its moral norms on the rest of society.



"Only because people continue to reinforce the stereotype of the "God, Gunas and Gays" Christian."



Sorry, kevin, but it is the "God, gays and guns Christians" who re-inforce the "God, gays and guns Christian" stereotype. Maybe if you stopped blindly supporting that agenda, you'd lose the mantle.



"The Christians I know would not single out homosexuality as some sort of egregious sin."



Then you sure don't know many. Almost all of them on these blogs sure do it - daily. Read ANY of "Donny"'s posts for blatant examples. HAC's too. Um, YOURS?



"Of course, some Christians are ignorant, and choose to single out homosexuals."



Ah, you found that mirror I offered earlier. Good for you.



"That said, do you know how many dereogatory comments about homosexuals I heard at the left-wing liberal arts college I attended?"



Oh, and that makes it right?



"I don't think [Haggard's] church membership is treating the issue any differently because he had sex with a man."



Another delusion.



"The problem is that, in the political arena, the question of gay marriage has become one of whether or not we hate homosexuals. As long as we deal with the issue in those terms, it will always be inflammatory."



I've got an idea. Treat us equally before the law, and the issue will go away.>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

Here's another leap of 'logic' that I can't stand, from kevin s...


"Loving your neighbor doesn't mean that we can do whatever we want."



Committing to one's partner before the state and the public is hardly doing "whatever we want". Currently 2 people can marry each other only if they are of the opposite sex. We aren't seeking to change the number of particpants in a marriage, only removing the discriminatory nature of limiting them to the opposite sex. How that translates into the 'anything goes' philosphy is a huge leap. (I can't wait for the posters to reply with the Rick "man-on'dog" Santorum suggestion that it will "lead" to a man marrying his pet, completely ignoring that pets aren't people and cannot give consent, but sometimes I hope against hope that tey'll actually learn something before they type...)



"If homosexuality is okay, then why isn't adultery, or whatever we want to do?"



Because adultery is the breaking of a covenant. There is implicit harm to the one 'wronged' by the breaker of the covenant. Two gay adults haven't broken their covenant before God or man; they're not even allowed to make one, legally.



Again, this "whatever we want to do" philosophy is NOT what is being espoused.



THAT's why it isn't "okay"! Thanks for asking.>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

kevin s,


"Just saying "I do it lovingly before God" doesn't make it acceptable."



Why not? It does for heterosexuals.



(presuming you're talking of making marriage vows here)>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

kevin s,


More leaps of logic...



You were told "Because the Bible does not state that homosexuality is a sin. Period."



You replied, "Bologna, and my proof is not from Leviticus."



Both mykull and myself have asked you repeatedly what IS your "proof". We are still waiting...



"you would have no scriptural or ethical backing for your claim. I might say that wearing blue socks should be illegal, it doesn't mean that using heroin should be legal."



Um, the original hypothesis was about drinking alcohol. Now you leap to bblue socks and legalizing heroin. Hardly even close to what we are discussing or what you are being asked. There is no logical leap from whether blue socks should be legal to whether or not heroin should be legal. Blue socks cause no one harm; ingestin (?) heroin most evidently DOES. Likewise, gay marriage (or homosexuality in and of itself) causes no harm to anyone.



"Why not allow marrying one's brother or sister?"



Ah, the old 'incest' angle of the 'argument' (as if that had anything to do witht he topic either). Ever hear of consanguinity? Besides, borthers and sisters are already 'kin'. Marriage makes two UNRELATED people next of kin by law. DUH!



"I ask because, there is no logical difference"



Actually, there is no logical CONNECTION.



"and yet a number of people are going to get huffy because I made the comparison."



Sure are. Because it's STOOOOPID.



"Why do they get huffy?"



Because it's STOOOOPID.



"Because it would be morally wrong to marry your sister. Obviously so."



Oh? How so? Please explain, and keep in mind the results of consanguinity. Then try to link it back to your claim that gay marriage is morally wrong. Curious minds really DO want to know this time. You're on pretty thin logic ice.



"So it is with marrying a member of the same sex."



In YOUR not-so-humble opinion. Others disagree.



Try again. And do better next time.>

curiouser and curiouser... · 3 years ago

"Either way, homosexuality is a sin."


According to kevin s's religion. Mine differs.



"It is not judgment to say that something is a sin."



Sin is a man-made concept, not unlike the Bible. Man made the list of "sins". And it's well time to de-list non-harmful consenting practice between 2 adults in private.>

Kevin K · 3 years ago

Fundamentalists, Christian and otherwise, turn their religion into ideologies rationalized throught the oversimplification of issues out of a perceived fear that modernity will destroy their tradition. Their fear is rational in this sense: if they engaged the issues with the intellectual rigor they deserve, their emperor would appear bereft of his clothes.>