My friend Sister Paula and I were discussing gays in church a couple of weeks ago. As a follow up, she forwarded me the thoughts of A RETIRED GAY MCC MINISTER.
I thought they were interesting enough to share.
Here are my thoughts today on Ted Haggard and his confession:
Rev. Ted Haggard confessed in a letter to his 14,000 member congregation in Colorado Springs that he is "a liar and a deceiver" and that he has had a "lifelong sexual problem."
Rev. Haggard has a lifelong problem all right, but it's not his sexuality. It is his religion. The rigid, moralistic belief system of fundamentalist Christianity has prevented him from being honest with himself in a way in which he could have meaningfully integrated his sexuality into the fabric of his life. Instead, his sexuality occupied a hidden compartment, divorced from his public self and even most of his private life. The shadows of the closet not only hide much of who a person is from others; they also hide a person from oneself. This divided life breeds a kind of pathology that corrupts the soul with guilt and fear of discovery and exposure. In such a state, one never acts as a whole person in any arena of one's life. Every act, in public and in private, becomes a lie. I should know: I lived that way for the first half of my life and for many of the same reasons that Ted has. Having grown up in the same kind of fundamentalism, I know how difficult it is to break out of the prison of one's lifelong conditioning.
Religious fundamentalism is every bit as addictive as alcohol, gambling, food and sex can be. And it can be very difficult to break free from until one faces a crisis or "hits bottom" in a way that the truth becomes unavoidable. Fundamentalism is poisoning Ted Haggard's life. Like all addictions, it poisons the soul in ways that the addicted person often does not realize until they are free from its power.
I'm sure the evangelical friends surrounding pastor Ted will try their best to get him cured of what they see as his "problem." But if you think the person has one disease and they in fact have another, and you treat them for the wrong condition, the patient gets worse, not better. Ted Haggard's only hope is to become liberated from the brainwashing he received in his early religious life and to begin to view himself and all his impulses with honest compassion and compassionate honesty. Because his moralistic beliefs unmoored his sexuality from his capacity to love and be loved, his sexual desires occupy a kind of wasteland of physical gratification without emotional and spiritual fulfillment. He has created for himself the worst of all possible worlds - a life where every option creates more suffering.
Right now, inflexible religion is Ted's greatest obstacle to healing and wholeness. If Ted Haggard can find the strength within himself to get honest, jettison his fundamentalism and begin a journey toward becoming real with himself and others, including his family, he can discover the true spirituality that will enable him to be a whole person. Then his homosexual feelings can become part of what he loves about himself, instead of what he hates. In a climate of self-acceptance, he can compassionately work out his relationships with others. And in the process, he might even rediscover the Jesus who reached out, without condemnation, in such deep compassion to those whose lives were broken.
Ted used the name "Art" when he communicated with his male "escort." It turns out that Arthur is, in fact, Ted's middle name. Let's hope that Ted and Art get to know each other and that they become one person.
RSS feed for posts
December 21st, 2006 at 12:12 pm
I know that this was true for me. I was addicted to religion during my time at CBC and didn’t even know it. I just knew that it always left me empty and it wasn’t until I hit bottom and God began to heal that I even knew I had the problem. It’s so easy to build your life around your religious addiction that it becomes unassailable in your mind. To question it is unthinkable because it opens the door to the destruction of everything you have worked so hard to build. Praise God that He has set me free from that, and every day He makes me a little more free. Gay or not, we could all learn a lesson from Ted.
December 21st, 2006 at 12:34 pm
I do not believe that a person’s sexual orientation is a choice.
I do not believe that a person can be “Cured” of homosexuality.
In fact, using the term “Cured” implies that homosexuality is an illness, which is degrading and demeaning to homosexuals.
Any heterosexuals who do not agree with the above statements need to ask themselves if they could be “Cured” of their heterosexuality.
December 21st, 2006 at 1:08 pm
I wonder if there will be Christians in Heaven? Because my Bible clearly says, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved. Neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will enter the Kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our Lord.”
It clearly looks to me like ‘Christian fornicators’, ‘Christian idolaters’, ‘Christian adulterers’, ‘Christian homosexuals’, ‘Christian thieves’, and ‘Christian drunkards’ are in for an unpleasant surprise on Judgement Day.
It’s funny how we can all pretty much agree that stealing is wrong, adultery is wrong, idolatry is wrong, but just don’t mess with the modern PC crowd and say that the latest fad sin is wrong….the poor dears can’t help themselves.
I got news for you. NOBODY can help sinning. Nobody can stop sinning. Nobody can overcome or be ‘cured’ of sin. It is impossible without the help of the Holy Spirit. BUT it IS possible. “BLessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they SHALL be filled.” If it was possible for any human being on the face of this earth to stop sinning in their own strength, then surely in the vastness of humanity, SOMEBODY would have gotten it right and Jesus wouldn’t have had to die a bloody death for our sakes.
“Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.” (1 Cor. 15:34)
December 21st, 2006 at 1:13 pm
What about pastors who lose their tempers and such?
December 23rd, 2006 at 6:08 pm
We are all born sinners, but He expects us to make an effort to become more like Him. Saying that a person is born gay is just an excuse. I do not believe that He would condemn that in the His Word and then create people as homosexuals and give them no opportunity to choose what is right. No person will ever be perfect but I guess some Christians believe that homosexuality is ok.
They can’t be cured because it is not a disease, it’s a choice. Stop doing it. How they ever could anyway is beyond me.
Also, when this was all going on Ted Haggard obviously could have cared less about Jesus Christ and his witness to the world. Satisfying himself was more important.
December 25th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Hey choice, Heterosexuality is a sin, stop doing it.
Do you see how idiotic that sounds to you?
December 26th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
heterosexuality is not a sin.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Really?
And why do you believe that homosexuality IS a sin?
Because some man wrote that in a book thousands of years ago?
December 26th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
I think I may have a hit a nerve…
Really, I shouldn’t have assumed that most of the people visiting this site are God fearing, Bible believing Christians that just wanted to get a load off of the shoulders. I don’t see why you even bother. If you don’t believe the Bible, then of course it is not a sin to you.
There is really no point. And it is a sin. A disgusting one at that. And please don’t go on a tangent about how I hate gay people. I have worked with them and I got a long with them just fine. But really, it’s also not natural. You can’t argue that. If it’s meant to be, then why can’t two men or two women pro create? Now there is food for thought!! lol
December 27th, 2006 at 6:53 am
Considering the number of homosexuals in this world, I believe that one COULD argue that homosexuality IS “Natural”.
And, of course, since you absolutely believe every part of the Bible, I assume that you keep Kosher laws and banish women during their periods, right?
December 27th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Speaking of, I’ll be away from the blog for awhile because there is no broadband connection in the red tent. See y’all in about a week.
December 27th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
And I sure hope nobody had any “Graven Images” of God on the Christmas Cards they sent out…
December 27th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
TMI for sure. You want to enlighten us all about anything else?
December 28th, 2006 at 12:47 am
Just because a lot of people are doing something, that doesn’t make it natural or right.
As for homosexuality being natual or “meant to be”, it made me think of the creation story in Genesis.
2:18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” 2:21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs [a] and closed up the place with flesh. 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [a] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 2:23-25 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
Obviously, this is what is natural. This is the way that God designed it to be. One MAN and one WOMAN. He created them to complement each other.
Yes, I do believe what is in the Bible. There is a difference between saying that you do not believe the Bible, like none of that ever took place or that you do, but you don’t feel that some of it is relevant for today. Although I see what you are saying, this includes other sexual sins that were also mentioned in Leviticus 18,
v. 22 ” Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. So, what about v. 7 Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her. or v. 16 Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother. this happens…
How is homosexuality any different?
December 28th, 2006 at 12:48 am
Nope, I don’t send out Christmas cards, but right back at ya!
December 28th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
The Buddhists, Muslims and Hindis all agree with you. They all think that Christianity isn’t right. And they are the majority.
And that means that your arguement is not open to discussion, because for you, it is a matter of faith.
In this matter, you, I and countless millions of others will undoubtably disagree.
Now then, would you care to discourse about something more “Neutral”, like, perhaps, abortion rights?
(LOL!)
December 28th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
I love the way you never have any real arguments. Just one or two sentences about nothing. And, I’m glad that I am a Christian. Jesus Christ is the way!
Yes, that is what Christians have. A strong faith in Jesus and His word. I hope you know Him.
True. People will always disagree but I’m glad I know the truth!
Abortion is a really sad thing. Hope you don’t support that. There are the rights of three people involved in those situations, not just the mother.
December 29th, 2006 at 11:41 am
Ah Ted, you really have to be able to follow the entire thread to understand:
You said:
“Just because a lot of people are doing something, that doesn’t make it natural or right.”
And I replied:
“The Buddhists, Muslims and Hindis all agree with you. They all think that Christianity isn’t right. And they are the majority.”
That points out your position that “Just because a lot of people are doing something, that doesn’t make it natural or right”
The Buddhists, Muslims and Hindis all agree with you, BUT they all think that YOU are WRONG in thinking that Christianity is the correct way.
It’s all about TOLERANCE, which you obviously do not possess in your rigidly defined version of Christianity.
I hope for your sake that God doesn’t disagree with you, lest you burn in Hell for all eternity.
(That last comment, by the way, is how most Christians condemn those whom they disagree with)
December 30th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
the pot calling the kettle black…
December 30th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
I have His Word read, obey, and enjoy. I highly doubt He would disagree with what He has made known to me.
December 30th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
You are betting your soul on that.
December 30th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
More like someone pointing out the bigoted homophobe for who he is.
December 30th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
I’m not quite sure why you would feel the need to make this comment. Is somebody doing what they are accusing others of? I am not betting on anything. I know for sure what will happen to me and that what I believe is correct. I know this because of my relationship with Him. If you do not believe the same, are not a Christian, that is fine, but then I am surprised that you are on this site. I thought it was for people who feel they have been wronged by certain churches, CBC mostly, but any church really. You have a different belief, that’s fine.
I am not a bigoted homophobe. You seem to be very sensitive to this subject, which is fine. I noticed that you also became irrate with another person under the “American Sex” post, calling them intolerant ect. Just because we disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, and yes, believe that it is a sin, doesn’t mean that we hate, are homophobes, or intolerant or anything else that you think. Just like everybody else, I have worked with homosexuals ect. If I wasn’t tolerant of them, I doubt that I would have shared lunch and other times with them. It is possible to “hate the sin” but “love the person”. I do not hate anybody for anything!
Yes, Jesus loved people, but he hated sin. And he is the perfect example to follow when it comes to living the way God wants us to.
I know that I have things to work on just like everybody else. I did not mean to come off “intolerant”, but please except my apologies.
December 30th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
For anybody here who does not know Him, I pray that you will come to know Him soon.
January 21st, 2007 at 8:23 am
To “Norm” and “Another BT product of the 80’s”, and perhaps others…
I have been approached privately, regarding my posts to each of you, that those posts may have mislead you, and left impressions others know I did not intend to leave, because they know my belief system. The concern is that the things I shared could have left an inaccurate perception of the New Testament teachings regarding the seriousness of sin and its eternal ramifications.
Because these issues are so important I would like to take a few moments to clarify the position I take, because your souls are so important, and because incorrect communications can lead to exposing the soul to unnecessary dangers.
First, let me say that it is not my intention to preach at you, or present myself as your judge. What I write this morning is born out of love for you, as well as a desire to bring clarity on the position I hold and the position I believe the bible takes, on the subject of sin.
Rather than reference homosexuality throughout this entry, I will only make a few comments regarding it, but will mainly focus on the issue of sin itself, since it is sin that is the primary issue, and not any one specific sin in question.
Let me return to a passage of scripture I posted in an earlier blog entry:
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
In this passage Paul says several very important things:
1. The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God.
This actually tells us two things. First, even though Jesus has died for all mankind’s sin, it is not a given that the benefits of His death will be applied to all mankind, because second, some of those whom He has died for will not inherit the kingdom of God.
This is critically important. Obviously the issue of homosexuality is mentioned in this passage, but, in contradiction to the way some here have handled this matter, we need to note that it is not in all CAPS as though it were the worst sin of all mentioned here. Sin is sin, and unless it has been cleansed by His blood, repented of, and turned away from, the one sinning any of these sins is in great peril - missing the kingdom of God.
I know some within the homosexual community believe Paul was addressing a culture that has long ago disappeared, and that if he were alive with us today he would qualify at least, if not remove, his reference to homosexuality. I don’t know this would be the case, so I won’t speak for him. There are others who believe Paul’s words only apply to those who “choose” to be a homosexual, and that many today believe this too would be wrong, but that because some are “born” homosexual in orientation Paul’s words do not apply to them. Once again, I don’t know Paul would say this, so I won’t speak for him. I only know he includes it here and in Romans chapter 1, in a way that clearly implies he sees no qualifications of culture or physiology. Once again, I’m not anybody’s judge on these matters. I only note what these passages say.
So, since Paul makes no qualification, and because the consequences to unrepented sin are so serious, the counsel I have given to every practicing homosexual I have counseled with, is two fold - 1) It appears to be sin, please repent of it, and learn to walk in the Spirit so as not to return to the practice of this sin. 2) Even if you find you never have any desires for the opposite sex, allow the Spirit to help you find joy as a single person, while honoring your commitment to righteousness.
I do not share this glibly, unawares of the agony this may cause for those who believe themselves to be homosexual. I know it will be extremely difficult. I believe Christ will help with that agony, but not always to the complete removal of the agony.
Returning to the Corinthians passage:
2. All of the sins of this passage need washing, sanctification, and justification from, in the name of Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of God.
None need more washing, etc. None appear to be considered worse by Paul. All need the same things, but all NEED these things. I place my own personal sins, that needed these things prior to salvation, right along side all of those mentioned in this passage. Sin is sin, and all needs the same work of Christ applied to them.
3. I also note the “past tense” element, in Paul’s words.
Wash “ed”, sanctifi “ed”, justifi “ed”. The clear implication is that for the person taking seriously these sins, they become something of their past. Does this mean if one ever sinned in any of these areas again he would automatically lose his salvation? Since salvation is not by works I would conclude the answer to that question is “no.” But, conversely, the clear implication of his words are that anyone “choosing” to continue to “practice” any of these sins, shows that he has not truly repented, seen these sins the way Jesus does, and is choosing to walk in a manner that embraces sin rather than forsakes it, and in all of the apostles theology this is evidence of an unsaved person; a person not born again, not washed, not sanctified, and not justified.
Because it is not my place to stand in Jesus’ place as judge, I don’t get into arguments over these matters. I love everyone…sinner and saint, but I must be honest with what I see here, and express as accurately as I know, the message of the New Testament.
4. Will not inherit the kingdom of God.
What does this mean? I’m not much of one to utilize the Jonathan Edwards approach to getting people to submit to Christ, I.e. the, hang a man over the fires of hell, approach. Somehow this does not seem to me to fit the apostles approach to the seriousness of unrepentant sin. Yet, they are quick to indicate the loss of the kingdom of Heaven is a very real consequence.
Does this mean if one does not inherit the kingdom of God he automatically inherits eternal damnation in Hell? There are three major theories on this:
1) Hell is an endless period of unimaginable torment, as a result of rejecting the work of Christ on a person’s behalf.
2) Hell is not endless, but it will stretch out for a great length of time, and ultimately end up in complete annihilation - I.e. no longer exist in any state of being anywhere for eternity.
3) Hell is not a proper term of the New Testament, to describe the endless place of abiding for those who have not received Christ’s work on their behalf in this life. They believe it is better to describe it as a place of temporal judgment, from which everyone will ultimately accept the correction of the Judge of the Universe, and finally accept the work of Christ on their behalf. In other words, all will receive endless second chances, though the agonies of judgment imply that it is not worth going through this, when salvation in this life would have delivered a person from such punishment and judgment.
Number one is the historically accepted position by Orthodox believers. Number two is held by a far lesser number of theologians. Number three is historically considered an heretical doctrine.
Which one is correct? I truly do not know. After hundreds of hours of study, all three have some merit to them. I have concluded God purposely left out some theological and biblical pieces that could have created a fully justifiable dogmatism. Because I see no biblical evidence of “any” kind of a 2nd chance process in heaven, I’m disinclined to believe this, but I will ultimately leave it up to the Lord.
What He did not leave out is the very clear - DO NOT LEAVE THIS LIFE UNSAVED message. Because missing out on knowing Jesus, and missing out on the kingdom of heaven is so serious, even if there is a 2nd chance, the process of judgment, punishment, confrontation, and missing the joys of the kingdom make it not worth it. And, if the punishment turns out to be endless, then such a state of being is beyond imagination horrible. Therefore, no matter what position one holds, making the decision settled in this life is the only thing that makes any sense at all. Hoping for another chance on the other side is incredibly unwise.
I only mentioned, in previous blogs, the theory, and seeming experience of Ian McCormack, and others, of there “possibly” being a 2nd chance in the presence of Christ on the other side, because it infuriates me to have bible believing Christians use the bible to bash gays, in a manner that is unbecoming to the message of Christ, and treats homosexuality as if it were the worst sin of all history. I do not think this is the manner we are to use to impart the Gospel. If, in using Ian’s story, or in any of my other comments, I left you or anyone else the impression that I believe homosexuality is not a sin that needs to be repented of, then I apologize, and I am rectifying that here. I do not correct this because I’m afraid of body of Christ reprisals, loss of ministry, or anything like this. I do this because I love and value your souls, and do not wish to say anything that could encourage you to continue in any sin for another moment, to say nothing of risking the kingdom of heaven for.
I do not know for certain how things will play out on the other side, but I do believe we must only think of there being one chance, and that one chance is in this life alone. I do believe homosexuality is a sin to be repented of, and an issue that a believer in Christ must learn to walk in the Spirit concerning, so as to overcome all manifestations of that sin, just like any other sin. I do not believe occasional failure equals loss of salvation, but I do believe it, as in any other sin that besets our lives, must be met with confession, repentance, and fresh commitment to walking in the Spirit again.
If this sounds demeaning or condescending then it is only because of my lack of ability to communicate in a manner that completely avoids that. It is not my intention to demean anyone. I wish only to clarify the position I hold, and to encourage all men and women everywhere to accept the work of Christ for their lives, turn away from every sin the New Testament calls sin, and learn to walk in the Spirit for full victory.
If I have still left things unclear here I invite questions, but I refuse to engage in hostile debate, as being unworthy of the love and discretion of Christ.
I do hope this clarification helps, and once again, I apologize for the length of this post, but I felt my prior lack of clarity necessitated it.
January 26th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
A Question About Former “Apostle” Ted Haggard’s Moral Accountability Structure:
living life says…
“I have been curious…what/who gave him [Dick Iverson] the designation as apostle?”
Hi living life,
Great question! Many have asked the same one. My bigger concern, however, is the question who gives ANYBODY the desigation of “apostle?” Functionally speaking, men and women who have big churches and plant other churches are many times looked at as “apostles” by their own local churches and growing movements. Sometimes, in the IC, the title is used to give prestige to the “founding” pastor of such a church or movement. What the NT says is an apostle is a whole different subject…
What is very scary about this is that there is an entire “apostolic” movement afoot! If you’re interested in learning more about it (with many leaders named “apostles” and their churches entitled “apostolic”, see: C. Peter Wagner’s, The New Apostolic Churches (Regal). Bible Temple is mentioned on pgs. 171, 172, 175. Dick Iverson: pgs. 171-184. Also see by the same author, Churchquake (Regal). Frank Damazio is mentioned on pgs. 70, 88, 91, 94-95, 102, 264. Dick Iverson’s on pgs. 91, 94-95, 102, 130, 153.
This is a huge subject and so I must restrain myself. I will quote a few lines from each of the books above to provide some sense of what Wagner thinks about these apostles and their churches and movements. In terms of your question above, note especially no. 4 below:
C Peter Wagner writes about “apostles:”
“The five most crucial questions about apostolic ministry are: (1) What is an apostle? (2) Are there apostles today? (3) How important are apostles? (4) How does an apostle gain authority? (5) What are the qualities of a genuine apostle? (Churchquake, p. 3)
C. Peter Wagner writes about “apostolic churches:”
“My experience as a church growth scholar has led me constantly to ask four crucial questions: (1) Why does the blessing of God rest where it does? (2) Churches are not all equal. Why is it at certain times, some churches are more blessed than others? (3) Can any pattern of divine blessing be discerned? (4) Do those churches that seem to be unusually blessed have any common characteristics? (The New Apostolic Churches, p. 16)
Much could be said here, but I’d just like to end my post by asking C. Peter Wagner, in light of the recent moral fall of his own pastor, Ted Haggard, if he would see the apostolic church government at his home church, New Life Church, which essentially had the senior pastor only submit to those outside of his local church, any differently now? C. Peter Wagner writes:
“My pastor, Ted Haggart, calls the operation of New Life Church a ‘pain-free church government.’ The only decision in the hands of the congregation is to give final approval to the call of a senior pastor when a new one is eventually needed. The call is presumably for life. Meanwhile, the pastor names a board of trustees to look after the financial matters of the church and a board of elders to look after the spiritual ministry of the church. Both are named to support the vision of the senior pastor. Ted has an external board of overseers ‘nominated by the pastor and confirmed by the elders…’ to whom he submits and holds himself accountable.” (Churchquake, p. 101)
Dear Dr. Wager: It’s great that you are “a church gowth scholar,” but after seeing how Ted deceived you and everybody at New Life Church for years and years and got away with it until recently (2006), I think that a church government structure that was a little less “pain-free” for God’s people would have been much safer both for you, Ted and New Life church, don’t you?