[update] Jeff Sharlet of Harpers and Rob Brendle of New LIfe Church discuss the article here.
This is interesting. Apparently a bunch of important media sources are going to be filming news stories at New Life, recently cited by Harpers as America's Most Powerful Megachurch, during the next week and Pastor Ted Haggard is asking everyone to tone things down a few notches so that they don't come off as crazy people in front of the nation. This is a church that claims to never hide anything from the general public, so this attempt at faking what actually goes on is particularly relevant. He mentions that Barbara Walters is working on a piece, and that Tom Brokaw will be visiting and offers these coaching tips for those who will be present.
Source: List e-mail to the congregation from Ted Haggard:
Now we're heading back to the United States and will be in church on Sunday, but I wanted you to see this e-mail about some upcoming media attention that was just forwarded to me so you can help me. Why? Because it indicates the importance of all of our doing a good job. The Lord has sovereignly placed all of us, as a congregation, in a position where we are representing born-again, Bible-believing Christians to groups outside our normal spheres of influence.
Here are a few tips:
1. If a camera is on you during a worship service, worship; don't dance, jump, etc. Secular people watching TV are touched with authentic worship, but jumping and dancing in church looks too bizarre for most to relate to. Remember, people watching TV news are not experiencing what you are experiencing. They are watching and thinking. Worship indicates sincerity, dancing and jumping looks like excessive emotionalism.
2. If reporters want to interview you, talk with them, but use words that make sense to them. Speak their language. Don't talk about the devil, demons, voices speaking to you, God giving you supernatural revelations, etc. Instead, tell your personal story in common sense language (I was a drunk but God changed me and now I'm sober, I'm grateful, etc.).
3. Don't be nervous. Be friendly and open. Reporters typically don't have an agenda, they authentically want to know what we do and why we do it. For example, Barbara Walters is working on a story about heaven and will interview me and get some supporting shots from the church. She might not use any of it, but she wants to put together an interesting story. Since we believe in heaven, we are, in fact, a good source. So, if she talks with you, don't be spooky or weird. Don't switch into a glassy-eyed heavenly mode, just answer, "Heaven is real. It's the place where God will be fully present with his people. He will reward people in heaven. Heaven is better than Colorado Springs." Say it straight and clear. Don't worry (Yeah, sure!).
The e-mail lists the upcoming media events which include Barbara Walters and Tom Brokaw personally visiting New Life over the upcoming week. Haggard will be on O'Reilly on Friday the 13th. Billdo wants him to talk about the environment for Christ's sake. Sheesh.
[another update] I have two more original stories on New Life Church here and here. Please check them out. The full Harpers essay is now online here. Discussion is encouraged, even begged for on this blog, so please have at it.
[update]
The full text of the e-mail is available at the link below.
Download the full e-mail text(5.8K).
[update]
I have seen a few people question the authenticity of the email. If you have any questions about it call up New Life Church and ask them yourself. Associate Pastor Rob Brendle was already nice enough to comment here.
"Heaven is better than Colorado Springs."
bahahahhhahah that's awesome.
Posted by: meg | May 11, 2005 at 08:28 AM
Obviously, any reporter who wants the real story should be sending in an undercover crew.
Posted by: | May 11, 2005 at 09:58 AM
"Reporters typically don't have an agenda, they authentically want to know what we do and why we do it."
Gotta give the guy credit for that line... at least he didn't ramble about the "liberal" media.
Posted by: ike | May 11, 2005 at 10:19 AM
outstanding post. this is real news and I appreciate it greatly. keep up the good work!
Posted by: Michael Hawk | May 11, 2005 at 10:26 AM
I guess it's no longer W.W.J.D.? (What Would Jesus Do?)
It's now: W.T.P.W.J.U.?
What Talking Points Would Jesus Use?
Posted by: Wonk | May 11, 2005 at 10:46 AM
Whenever I take someone to church I pray that God would show them the good stuff and keep the starnge stuff out. But It never worked. Couldn't put God in a box.
Posted by: trailertrashbob | May 11, 2005 at 12:16 PM
The e-mail doesn't sound authentic. It has a stereotypical quality to it.
Posted by: Cecelia | May 11, 2005 at 03:22 PM
Rob Brendle, Associate Pastor of New Life Church:
Since the last election and the Time Magazine story on the 25 most influential evangelicals, our church has received some media attention. This email was to let our congregation know of some of the week's happenings, and coach them a little bit on communicating effectively with the media. Every subculture is a world unto itself, with its own traditions, expressions, and norms; evangelical Christianity is no exception. When we become aware that our meetings are gaining a wider audience, we want to present our faith in a way that is understandable to as many as possible. We believe the media is a friend and great asset to the church, and we want to work together well.
Posted by: Rob Brendle | May 11, 2005 at 05:24 PM
Wait, wait...I thought it was being filled with the Holy Spirit that caused them to froth at the mouth, roll on the floor, faint, speak in tongues, all of that. So, shouldn't the memo be addressed to God?
By telling them to cool it during worship, he's implicitly admitting that those displays are no such thing - they're just a way to get attention.
Posted by: geni | May 11, 2005 at 06:09 PM
"Here are a few tips:
1. ... Remember, people watching TV news are not experiencing what you are experiencing. They are watching and thinking..."
HAHA! Well, if ever there was an overt confession made as to whether anyone in these churches are "thinking", there it sits. :)
Posted by: HoppieToad | May 12, 2005 at 06:39 AM
Hey, give Pastor Ted a break - sure we're led and filled by the Holy Spirit - and sometimes Pastor Ted is even out there doing his little "jig for Jesus". Because we know that most of YOU like your religion quiet and staid - "grandma's church" - we don't want to send you over the top since God is pretty wild and free. In other words, he just doesn't think you'll get it...
Posted by: Mary Morin | May 12, 2005 at 10:00 AM
Face it: you're a bunch of cultists and you would make David Koresh proud.
Posted by: Nate | May 12, 2005 at 07:49 PM
I think that geni's comments are pretty well and valid... It is played up as if the participants actually roll over consumed by the love of God and are transformed into these wonderful spiritual vehicles when, in fact, they are capable of turning it off and on at their convenience. Sounds more like a circus act than a real awakening.
Posted by: Ryan | May 13, 2005 at 02:09 PM
Think of it more as PDA. Just as excessive public displays of affection are met with distaste by any observers outside of the intimate pair, an emotional connection time in worship could appear over the top to outsiders.
Posted by: Tan | May 13, 2005 at 09:11 PM
If you read 1 Corinthians 14 you will see that Paul instructed the church to "curb" activity of the Spirit that outsiders would not understand. He encouraged them to continue that activity in situations where unbelievers would not be present. I think Pastor Ted was wise in following that example.
Posted by: Billy | May 14, 2005 at 10:22 PM
I think it's a smart move and all. However, speaking in tongues can hardly be viewed as a public display of affection. How can anyone expect to be taken seriously if they claim to be able to speak in tongues at will? I can understand the whole, "Hey, let's not dance, sing, or act out while the cameras are here", because obviously they will be looking for some way to humiliate you. Yet, it seems a little more like an act now that we all know that you ham it up that much more when we aren't looking.
Posted by: Ryan | May 16, 2005 at 09:48 AM
I think Ted Haggard sounds like the best thing that has happened to the church today. He sounds like the man for the hour in leading the Evangelicals. Relationship is what it is all about. He is just being kind, courteous and gracious towards those who have not experienced the love, forgiveness and freedom of God.... those who maybe cannot relate to why some people like to praise and worship freely. Maybe if we all experienced these things we would want to dance,praise and sing too! Maybe we should all go try a day at New Life Church! Sounds alive and well to me!
Posted by: David | May 17, 2005 at 11:54 PM
I come from a totally opposite “subculture”-- otherwise known as spiritual beliefs not shared by the many. I am used to our very beliefs being questioned, much less our ceremonies. I can fully understand the Pastor’s desire to put on a good face for the cameras. What I think is sad is his motivations.
He is motivated to portray things different than they are. Why? Because society does not accept different things. We are becoming spiritually homogenized. The country that was founded on #1 Freedom of Religion. You guys ridicule them here. We are fighting wars over seas over religion. Religious sects are attacking us quoting their scriptures. What happen to our freedom of beliefs?
In a perfect world, their church could portray itself in it’s fullest glory, and we would all watch and be inspired, or wondered, or happy for them, or any other positive reaction. But, we would not. We would all act just like you are now about his email, and we would find fault. Hence why his email went out in the first place. You prove his very point.
Posted by: warpcore | May 19, 2005 at 06:43 AM
Pastor Ted was WRONG! I wish you could have seen the email I received when I questioned him about his statements. Since when are we as Christians supposed to conform to what the world thinks we should be? (go ahead please find a scripture for me) Pastor Ted just showed everyone he is more concerned about the media and his influence around this country than he is about the lost and dying in Colorado Springs. You go Ted! God has already marked this one in his palm pilot.
Posted by: dasa | May 22, 2005 at 08:03 PM
Excuse me! Most people in our culture blindly believe everything our most popular media outlets produce. They don't think for themselves and whatever editorial spin or agenda may be in the background is empbraced as though it is total reality.
For a pastor to "coach" his congregation regarding their deportment when under the scrutiny of a camera or the keyboard of a journalist is perfectly legitimate.
I don't know about you but when we have strangers over for dinner, we always remain true to our family life patterns and never disguise who we are. However, we do coach our children in proper protocal and appropriate manners when entertaining guests.
Chris
Posted by: Chris Byrd | May 25, 2005 at 04:44 AM
Okay, I'll bite. I'm a Christian and former theology student. I really don't care for the megachurch model and I have always had fundamental (what is it with you people and that word?!) problems with evangelical Christianity in the USA because my complaints go way back to Lutheran vs. Anabaptist problems. That's just my thing, so whatever. But I am always deeply saddened when there's this perception that Christians are weird. not because we're not, but because that's supposedly all there is to say about it. One dramatic image of a massive churchfull of holy rollin folks and that's all she wrote. On the one hand I applaud the pastor for wanting his flock to put a good foot forward and not letting their media (i.e. style of worship) be the only message to The Media, but instead for the gospel to flow freely. On the other, gahhh! The media is always so bowled over by people of authentic faith. Even if I disagree with the specifics of lots of their theology or don't practice their way, I empathize that my fellow brothers and sisters in the faith are "good copy."
Posted by: Jon | May 27, 2005 at 02:29 PM
NON - thanx for posting those great links at my site.
Steve J.
Posted by: Steven J. | May 31, 2005 at 08:34 PM
The terrifically sad point of Ted's kingdom is he is more concerned with how others may interpret what they see on film, than authenticity. The whole "there's a demon out there so let's go hoarse praying in tongues at it until the demon leaves" is complete crap, in my humble opinion. Sounds like one more money making venture to lure the zealous w/o knowledge to his kingdom of far-far-off ones. AND I am a grateful reformed religious addict/ b/again believer who left this cultish society before they started handing out the Kool-aid.
Posted by: Unregulated Female | June 01, 2005 at 05:26 PM
"Don't talk about the devil, demons, voices speaking to you, God giving you supernatural revelations, etc."
You know... if these folks weren't affiliated with a church, they'd be considered clinically insane and placed in an in-patient psychiatric facility.
Posted by: TMB | June 01, 2005 at 06:12 PM
There is good reason for all that. The congregation isn't out of control. They're just doing stuff that feels right in expressing how they feel. Face it, they can't have sex, wear cool clothes, go to nightclubs, or have sex if they're not married. They've got to have some fun some time! Mardi Gras looks just as out of control and crazy to them.
As for talking the language of the secular world, Carl Jung explained it well. He said that the only phrasing that fits archetypal, religous experiences are downright embarassingly bombastic overblown visuals.
Posted by: Hestia | June 02, 2005 at 12:27 AM
The twist here, Hestia, is that real believers/ followers/ whatever the label, DO wear cool clothes, have sex, enjoy sex,and go to museums, nightclubs, bars. Being very aware of the inner workings of this church and those denoms associated with it, is that people (me at one time included) found life easier to escape using their own "drug of choice." This whole scene to me is zeal w/o knowledge... gone amuck.
Posted by: Unregulated Female | June 02, 2005 at 09:21 AM
If you have to cover up, or mislead the press with regards to what is really going on within your church each week -- then it sounds to me like there are some shady things happening that you aren't too proud of. I've heard one of these New Lifers talking about demons in her head, and about how psychology isn't real -- as all mental disorders can be blamed on demons and devils, etc.... There is something extremely cult-ish about these people, and a few things that I just can't put my finger on.
-Jack
Posted by: Jack Danger | July 09, 2005 at 02:47 PM
Wow. You are all just proving Ted's point. Such behavior would attract attention by socialist liberals such as those who frequent this site. Even attempt to avoid this attention by the socialists has gotten undue criticism.
Gee what a big story! This isn't journalism of any kind. It is just the typical prejudice by the Godless liberals.
Remember the leaders of Godless regimes such as Stalin? Murdering millions, prison camps, mass oppression of human rights. Yeah, that's progress.
c
Posted by: c | July 10, 2005 at 08:59 AM
I just saw the article in the Gazette and decided to log in and see what was being said. I have many thoughts on "Organized Religion" and have been looking for someplace to express them. I agree with the writer who said that it sounds cultish, mainly because if you don't believe, behave, or do the rituals as they want you to (no matter what belief/church you go to) you are going to hell by their standards. Whatever happened to "UNCONDITIONAL LOVE", which is what our creator GOD/ALLAH/JEHOVAH is all about. Why is it that there are no organized religions that can practice this and leave the "JUDGEMENT" up to the creator from whom we all come from. Many of us have consciously decided not to follow this example because they want to control others and instill fear of the creator or others to be able to control. This is what organized religion is mostly about. They have to have someone to hate, be against or, say they are evil in order to exist. They cannot exist on loving each other without any conditions for that love. I am a minister's son and have seen the hypocrisy of organized religion and consider myself a spritual person. I do not fear the creator or my physical death which is something else that many religions like to teach. They want everyone to live in fear of something. I believe that Ted Haggards teachings fall into these categories very easily just as Focus on the Family does.
Posted by: Doug | July 10, 2005 at 09:14 PM
Doug:
You have many valid points and they apply to many institutions. The evangelicals are merely pushing their agenda just like everybody else. Why does that make them so bad?
I've been to New Life and there has never been any talk of living in fear or hating anyone. I wish folks would really know what they are hating before they throw around all of these accusations.
c
Posted by: c | July 11, 2005 at 06:57 AM
c- I do not feel the evangelicals are bad except for when they try to get involved with other peoples lives and politics so that everyone can live their life as the evangelicals feel they should. They do teach about "Hell" if you don't do this or that, or that you won't go to heaven if you do not accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord and saviour or if you don't become "born again". These are some of the fear/control tatics that I was speaking of. They are indirect but they make those who listen and believe what they hear that they are a lesser person and unloved by the Creator if they do not adhere to a particular teaching. Thus the reason I do not get involved with any organized religions. They all have there good points, some more than others, but I do not need someone else to interpert for me what my relationship is or should be with the creator. New Life has gotten on the bandwagon of stating or insinuating that certain lifestyles/people are "evil" and not acceptable to the creator. This is totally about control and fear. They forget that God's love is "Unconditional" to all and we were all created by him.
Posted by: Doug | July 11, 2005 at 03:20 PM
Doug, I respect your viewpoint but disagree.
It is often offensive to people to hear there is only one way to heaven. For those of us who know that truth is not relative to each individual's interpretation this is a rudimentary idea. Think of it this way: there is only one correct answer to most mathematical problems. Why is it so difficult to accept there is only one answer to eternal death?
Secular humanism has permeated every facet of today's society and most just buy into it. The postmodern view of athiesm,"do wat feels good for you" and "that may be true for you, but not for me" is just what you blindly accept. If you think about it, this is absolute anarchy!
You can believe that forces such as gravity do not exist, but don't expect me to jump off of a skyscraper with you. You are free to embrace your own damnation, I won't preach or convince you otherwise. Just please think about such important decisions.
I know no one is about to even think about listening to me in this forum, but I would offer you the following reading material if you are remotely interested:
Blaise Pascal
- Pensees
C.S. Lewis
- Mere Christainity
Soren Kierkegaard
- The Sickness Unto Death
The are quite heady, but I'm sure your up to the challenge. I've found them infinitely more substantial that my initail attempts at spirituality such as Buddhism and Taoism. Give them a try if you enjoy challenging philosophic reading. If not, that's ok too.
Best regards,
Corey
Posted by: c | July 11, 2005 at 06:20 PM
I would like to also add that God's love and blessings are unconditional...to those that choose to follow His ways and believe in Him.
But His wrath is conditional. I think we often skip over the fact that God can curse as well as bless.
c
Posted by: c | July 11, 2005 at 07:03 PM
Ah yes, Pensees. The "Glorious Wager." That one is fun. Care to give a brief explanation to the idiot masses here before I take it down piece by piece? I don't want to do ALL the typing for this one.
Posted by: meg | July 11, 2005 at 09:35 PM
I don't think that Pascal is infallible, nor do I think anyone here is an idiot.
Please enlighten us with your brilliant philosophic interpretations of an intellect you can only dream to equal, Meg. (Not that you are an idiot, I just would like you to prove to be you are a genius.) I'm sure in philosophy 101 you heard something you can share with us.
c
Posted by: c | July 12, 2005 at 07:00 AM
Why argue finer points of philosophy with someone who just wants to be an ass by making snide remarks towards strangers on the internet? There's no reason to get into it, then. I have nothing to prove to "be" to you.
If you already don't think Pascal's wager is infallible, why is it pertinent to your belief structure? What do you really have to offer to the people who read this blog besides insults?
Posted by: meg | July 12, 2005 at 08:07 AM
Meg:
I don't see where I insulted you, but if I offended you I'm sorry. I really am here to try to understand the liberal philosophies being touted.
As for Pascal, he is a brilliant thinker whom I enjoy reading. I don't base my entire belief system on him. I was merely offering to Doug some interesting reading, although I doubt anyone here would be interested.
For someone who is interested in philosophy you might want to develop a thicker skin. Argument is how you prove your points.
I would be greatly interested in your philosophic insights. I really mean it. Who would you say are your philosophic influences?
c
Posted by: c | July 12, 2005 at 12:15 PM
Someone said:
"Gee what a big story! This isn't journalism of any kind. It is just the typical prejudice by the Godless liberals."
I don't consider myself a liberal at all. I'm actually quite the conservative on 99% of issues, but when I see something that just plain stinks -- I tend to examine it closely. As a conservative, I also take offense when anyone -- be it the government, or a religeous organization tries to push it's values or beliefs on me. As a conservative, my beliefs revolve around the importance of the rugged individual in our society -- and that person's rights as an individual.
It seems that now a lot are saying that to be a conservative, you must also be a religeous fundamentalist -- Which has me concerned for the future of our ideology... I don't think Thomas Jefferson would have shared these types of views.....
-Jack
Posted by: Jack Danger | July 13, 2005 at 01:50 AM
This is the bottom line. The Bible is truly the word Of God or it is not. If not, then it is over when we die and no heaven or hell to worry about. Now, if or since it is truly His inspired word, then there is a heaven and hell and one must trust in Christ in order to be in heaven.
Christians should not push their faith on people, we are called to present the gospel of salvation and the Holy Spirit does the convicting of ones heart.
We as Christians are taking a bad rap. I do not take part in protesting clinics or anyother form.
Posted by: JOE LIZOTTE | July 15, 2005 at 06:38 PM
The new issue of Harpers Magazine contains the "Don't be Weird" email.
Posted by: Non-Prophet | July 26, 2005 at 04:21 PM
Nate: God doesn't force people to worship or pray, he does not force a mode on you. Of course you can turn your behaviour the way you want. So you can adapt your behaviour to the circumstances (just like your family hopefully does when visitors are around). Different when God overwhelms you (or rather, those who seek him) with his presence, but then who could stand? Check Paul's letters if you are a Christian, if not, ask yourself why something like New Life can exist in a smart world, and read the the gospels.
Posted by: Jaybird | August 31, 2005 at 08:55 PM
c: regarding "Whatever happened to "UNCONDITIONAL LOVE", which is what our creator GOD/ALLAH/JEHOVAH is all about" etc., your father forgot to teach you that allah is not yahwe. unconditional love does not even work among humans in a humans-only world, if that could exist. people organize in groups no matter what they do, so it comes naturally, even with religious groups.
Posted by: Jaybird | August 31, 2005 at 09:08 PM
"unconditional love" as God's wish for us of course is not the same thing as his love for us shown in John 3:16 that needs to be ratified by us to be of effect, for no gift can be without being accepted, even secular law states. How do you know God is creator (you mean: of all things and beings?) and yet not to be reverently feared? That would be paradox.
Posted by: Jaybird | August 31, 2005 at 09:13 PM
JESUS CHRIST is GOD.
Posted by: HENRY FRANCIS STEPHENS | November 25, 2005 at 05:03 PM
JESUS CHRIST is GOD.
Posted by: HENRY FRANCIS STEPHENS | November 25, 2005 at 05:04 PM
Welcome to Wayne's Online Bible Study
http://www.waynebrownministries.com
Posted by: Wayne Brown | January 06, 2006 at 05:29 PM
Bible study spam. I feel some type of conflict in that.
Posted by: Non-Prophet | January 06, 2006 at 05:41 PM
CHRISTIANITY IS POLYTHEISM. If Christ is God, and God is God, that's two friggin' Gods. If you can worship two Gods, so can I by Crom.
Posted by: Nate | January 07, 2006 at 07:44 PM
I attend NLC (and have for 11 years), and the entire purpose of that email was to stop certain people within the church who would do things just to get attention. Every ministry/organization/business has those people who will act out in certain settings when there are TV Cameras around. Pastor Ted's whole idea there was to stop those who would act out just to get attention. What he wanted was for the newscrews and those who watched the shows to see the genuine new life church and not the NLC that you would see courtesy of those in attendance who just want attention and their 10 seconds of fame.
Posted by: Jonan Malinaric | January 30, 2006 at 10:57 PM
Corey said:
" Secular humanism has permeated every facet of today's society and most just buy into it. The postmodern view of athiesm,"do wat feels good for you" and "that may be true for you, but not for me" is just what you blindly accept. If you think about it, this is absolute anarchy! "
I personally feel that secular humanism has not permeated far enough into today's society, but that's not the sort of thing we can settle by argument. But I will have to disagree with your statement that "that may be true for you, but not for me" is the way atheists think. I would say that one of the main aspects of a functional atheist philosophy is that not being able to rely on God as an explanatory mechanism means we have to fall back on science. As scientists and rational philosophers we generally tend to start with the assumption that there is ONE reality and that we can discover what that reality is.
Perhaps you were talking about moral truths, not physical truths (in which case you shouldn't have used the example of attempting to ignore gravity, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). It is true that atheists sometimes disagree on what is "right" or the best course of action for society to take. This is because our morality ultimately rests on values - and the consequences of our actions in maximizing those values (as opposed to the artificially unifying concept of "well, God said to do it", which in practice usually comes across as, "well, my pastor said the Bible said that God said to do it"). My personal values are generally growth, experience, pleasure. Another atheist may value the same, plus arbitrarily place a negative value on cuss words. The point is that people's values are naturally varying, in a way that things like the Universal Law of Gravitation are not. We have a lot in common but there is some that differs (some people like ice cream, some people value orderliness in an of itself, etc). The positive thing about these rational atheists, i would say, is that being scientists you can argue the means with them by revealing the truth about the mechanism by which our actions affect our values. If we all have the same values, by scientific discourse we will eventually come to consensus on definition of moral behavior versus immoral behavior. This is because those mechanisms are part of reality, of which we agree there is one, and which we believe has stable laws of behavior (unlike your average theist, who must always wonder when his unpredictable and unfettered God will come in and make his predictions moot).
You can say what you want about atheists, but don't expect us to take you seriously when you say we have no motivation, means, or tendency to arrive at the same beliefs.
Posted by: Lucius | May 19, 2006 at 12:41 PM
Wow. A response to something I said a long time ago. Cool.
For one I really don't care if anyone takes me seriously, but thank you for expanding on your athiestic views, I do find them interesting.
I guess I didn't mean imply "do what feels good" as a tenet of atheism, just a pervasive modern attitude. This is really more "self worship" than atheism. But when you say your personal values are "generally growth, experience, pleasure", this equates to "do what feels good" when you think about it.
My point about gravity is merely that I believe ignoring spiritual truths to be equally dangerous (actually, more dangerous) than ignoring physical truths. And really, by spiritual truths I just mean the beatitudes. I actually regret my comment about damnation, sounds a bit more "fire and brimstone" and judgmental than I really am.
"My personal values are generally growth, experience, pleasure."
Sounds an awful lot like Aleister Crowley: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
Mr. Crowley. Spooky.
c
Posted by: c | May 21, 2006 at 10:54 AM
Lucius,
"as opposed to the artificially unifying concept of "well, God said to do it", which in practice usually comes across as, "well, my pastor said the Bible said that God said to do it")"
Characterizing Christians as non-intellectual sheep who just do what their pastor or what "God" told them is a bit cliche. Christians I know use sermons and scriptures as a moral guide, true, but we are not all just idiots who think whatever Dobson and Limbaugh tell us to.
That said, I have encountered statement using "God told me" or "the Spirit is guiding me" as justification. This is total BS. I mean how can you refute God? It is, of course, what they think God is telling them. Whatever.
Peace,
c
Posted by: c | May 21, 2006 at 11:32 AM
Living in Colorado Springs I run into Ted Haggards disciples everywhere I go. It's always the same thing...trying to straighten someone out according to what Ted says. I try to ignore such people, but they seem to be on every corner. What does a sane person do?
It's not that I don't enjoy a good talk about the Bible, but people who only know what they are told are impossible to talk to. What is even worse, is feeling that I have to face the "brunt" of Ted's personal viewes, much like Jehovah Whitnesses bugging you with their ignorance. But maybe with Ted it's just the Charismatic ignorance which is the true burden. Regardless, there are people who harass people with this nonsense and give Ted the credit as their "prophet".
Is this not a clear case of what happens when a preacher is PAID to please a people who are too uneducated to read and understand any "truth" recorded in the Bible?
Posted by: Bilbow | September 25, 2006 at 05:27 AM
Keep your values off my family.
Posted by: dissenter | November 03, 2006 at 01:41 AM
Turns out he was just high.
Posted by: Wrecks | November 03, 2006 at 12:25 PM
"The 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 ...
Ohhh ha ha ha ha ha. The son of a bitch enjoys a good cornhole with a snort of meth!
Posted by: Robert Lindh | November 03, 2006 at 01:21 PM
I just hope that vehemently opposing gay marriage will become a red flag for closet cases for conservatives and they'll drop that issue. I don't know, though. Maybe they do prefer that gay men marry women, have kids, preach against homosexuality while secretly doing speed and screwing male prostitutes?
Posted by: JMG | November 03, 2006 at 03:17 PM
Evangelicalism will always be hobbled in its proclamation of the Gospel to a needy and increasingly skeptical world as long as it does not look more critically at its doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
Do we truly believe that we're doing God and people a service by saying one thing and doing another?
The belief that our pastors, ministers and priests are simply forgiven sinners and can keep on sinning can assuage the conscience but is a scandal to all seekers. Martin Luther's famous aphorism: Pecca fortiter, sed fortius crede (sin much but believe more) simply doesn't cut it in the modern marketplace.
If pastor Haggard truly loves God, he will see this as an opportunity to deepen his faith and trust. Why not start a church for those who need to be forgiven by people as well as by God. He would have to be an unpaid pastor.
St Augustine asked: "Quid ergo amo cum Deum meum amo?" (What is it I really love when I love my God?)
Posted by: Paulus | November 05, 2006 at 09:33 AM
Maybe its time we preach some true grace, and that christianity is about born again believers who still struggle with sin but have an actual relationship with God with or without Sin. Look at David in the bible, we only talk about the good things he does but not the bad things he has done. He even sounds hypocritical when he was writing the book of Psalms yet God still loves him. I'm not saying what Ted did is ok but we need to acknoledge that the christian walk is not about moral appearances as Ted has made it to be. Christianity is about loving God and loving your fellow man as Christ did.
Does that make gay lifestyle ok, no but neither is over indulgence in food or drink as well. We are all sinners and we need to know the difference between the holy walk of moral appearances and a truly genuine walk of faith in Christ. Jesus hung out with all those that in todays standards (North American lifestyle) would still be the rejects of society (prostitutes, tax collectors, whatever)including gay prostitutes. Not using them, but being their friends. Yes I am sad for Ted but I am also sad for what christianity stands for today. 15 minutes to 30 minutes of pretend worship and then a fake lifestyle the rest of the week. Sorry but if Ted gets ridicule, he should swallow it and use it for his ministry and maybe show how Christ has still acceptance for him as well as rest of the sinners in this world. Maybe the gay community may still get some respect for him and want to listen to what he has to say but it will take genuine humility and also accepting the fact he is no different from any other sinner, saved or not saved. (moral appearances count for nothing but genuine love for your fellow man does)
sorry for the winded comments. you can tell me shutup now.
Anyways thats my bit.
Posted by: Rick | November 07, 2006 at 07:44 PM
thank you for the food for thought, Rick and Paulus
Posted by: allopathicholistic | November 10, 2006 at 12:20 PM
especially Paulus.
Posted by: pete | November 10, 2006 at 12:44 PM
can't compare anyone to david unless they repent and turn away from sin. David was a man after Gods own heart because once he saw he had sinned he repented of it and never did it again. so let us see how things turn out......
Posted by: Jesus freak | December 14, 2006 at 07:44 AM
ted, hi;;u don;t know me . but im from n,c,. u know this world can be so craul.everyone has made mistake on this eath ,who r we to judge,,for we will be judge,if god can forgive us of our sin then why can;t ur people forgive u.u r not the only pastor to get caught up in this world of sin.and they have had a chance to get there life together.i think u do deserve the same as we do.and i do think god that u had the sense to b honesty to tell the truth.god knows we all sketon in our closet,and i think ur wife is right for standing by u.my god look at jimmy sweggar,,the things he had done god for give him,so don;t give up.i know alot of people was disapponted, but only god knows ur heart,,so hang in there and let god take care of it,,,think u V,Jacobs ofn,c
Posted by: versie jacobs | February 03, 2009 at 11:52 PM