Touring the Net

I am not going to call this a "weekly" tour because I haven't been too good about doing it weekly.

• First, the 215th Christian Carnival is up at Fish and Cans. A sample of three posts:
  
  
  • A fellow Oregonian posts "My Testimony" as a meme. My contribution starts here. Go look at her questions, answer at your blog, and link in her comments.
  
  
  
  • Politicians say some interesting things about scripture. Jeremy Pierce at Parableman looks at a recent comment by Barack Obama:

    I want to delve a little bit into the contrast he draws between the Sermon on the Mount and Romans 1. The gist of his statement is (1) the Sermon on the Mount is more central to Christian faith than an "obscure" passage in Romans, and (2) the Sermon on the Mount should influence our attitudes toward civil unions in some positive way.

    The conversation in the comments between two of the "parablemen" is a really good launch for this discussion.
  
  
  
  • Speaking of that obscure passage in Romans, Chris at The Bible Study Podcast begins a podcast series on Romans:

    This is the introductory episode for a new series studying the book of Romans. This episode will provide an overview of why we will be studying the book of Roman. It also starts to look at the introduction to this letter. Romans is the only one of Paul’s letters written to a church that he has not previously preached to. Because it is written to a new audience it is the most complete of the New Testament letters theologically.

• Another meme caught by eye at Parableman: "Bible Meme". I am putting this on my list to do - and you can consider yourself tagged if you like (but since I haven't yet (and may never) done it - my tag doesn't really count since I am not yet "it")



• Joe at Evangelical Outpost looks at "Prostitution and the Pollution of Moral Ecology":

  The news of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's dalliances with high-priced prostitutes fills me with sadness, regret, and dread. Sadness over the Governor's shaming his family in such a public way, regret at having to listen to the smirking schadenfreude of his political enemies, and dread that we'll have to suffer the tedious and inevitable articles and blog posts asking, "What's the problem with prostitution?"

• Bonnie at Intellectuelle examines "The Exclusive Nature of Religious Pluralism":

  To look at RP [religious pluralism] more closely, one has to admit that it cannot really exist because religious pluralism cannot embrace historic Christianity, it rejects it. Historic Christianity teaches that it is only through faith in Jesus can anyone be saved, and RP rejects this claim. Therefore, all roads do not lead to God, rather any road other than historic Christianity leads to God.

• Scot at The Jesus Creed has a series on Os Guinness' The Case for Civility. See "Civility 1" (it has reached "Civility 3")

  Some of my finest moments of exhilaration in study have emerged out of visions for what public discourse has been and could be. But we are presently mired, largely in the wake of America’s culture wars, in bombastic and apocalyptic ruts. We have Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter and Sean Hannity and Michael Moore and Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, and just naming them embarrasses public discourse. I despise TV news talk shows where folks talk over one another.

• Two folks pointed to a new CDC report that 1 out of 4 teenage girls have a sexually transmitted disease - with two diametrically opposed conclusions:
  
  
  • Rain at Street Prophets believes this shows a lack of eduction of our children - particularly because of "abstinence only" sex education:

    My sister and I discussed this briefly this morning and she made the point that teenagers are not stupid. They need information so that they can protect themselves – and abstinence only programs of sex education are likely to blame for some – if not a lot -- of this. Add to this the fact that health care is not easily available to many American families and the problem is compounded.

  • Melinda at the Stand to Reason Blog points out the obvious:

    Some people scoff that "abstinence doesn't work." Yet, I guarantee you that all of the girls who practice abstinence are in the disease-free group. Abstinence works every time it's tried. No one said it was easy, only that it is right and it works. More than 3 millions girls lives are devastated because they bought the cultural lie perpetuated by the sexual revolution.

  My 14 year old daughter's response: her classmates are NOT ignorant that unprotected sex can cause pregnancy or STD's - and they can be very stupid when it comes to sex. She proceeded to tell me some horror stories she has overheard at school which I will not repeat here.
  
  We are failing our children - but the failure is in the lack of moral and ethical grounding about sex - both culturely and in our families; and not because they lack information about the negative outcomes of sex: they know them and ignore them in the moment.
  
  
  • Should sex education by "abstinence only"? No.
  
  
  • Should it be morality and ethics free? No - it needs to include abstinence (my daughter's health classes do not).
  
  
  • Can our schools handle the ethics and moral education necessary? No.
  
  Parents: teach your children well. [Incidentally, for anyone who says my daughter's opinion is anecdotal - she is an expert on everything: just ask her :-)



• Jan at The View from Her has something to say "Re: The Apologists":

  I have two observations that cause me to re-think apologetics as a positional framework for faith. First, the desire to be "right" can sometimes get tangled up in the lust for power that goes all the way back to the Garden. Armed with all the "right answers" we are ready for battle, to attack and demolish another's arguments so we can conquer them with The Truth. Do we really think adversarial war metaphors will help us win anyone to Christ? Really? I remember hiking in the mountains, and crossing a stream from rock to rock. A friend stretched out his hand to help me make a particularly slippery jump. This is a better metaphor, I think - helping people cross over to faith from rock to rock, and extending well-thought-out answers to help them over the places where they may have the most fear.

  This is primarily about folks thinking Anne Rice the artist should adhere to reality in her Christ the Lord series



• In the "you cannot make this stuff up" department, Save the Humans [HT: The Volokh Conspiracy] reports [please tell me this is a spoof]:

  In a surprising turn of events, NY Governor Eliot Spitzer has filed a lawsuit against “Kristen”, a prostitute for the Emperor’s Club prostitution ring. Spitzer’s complaint alleges that “Kristen’s” refusal to allow him to sleep with her bareback, while allegedly knowing of his sexual addiction, constituted unfair exploitation of an ADA-protected disability.

  There . are . no . words.



• Finally, back to those schools teaching sexual morals and ethics: WorldMagBlog reports on a school in Illinois that assigned Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes as required reading:

  "The book is replete with profanity, overt racism through multiple uses of the N-word, an explicit description of a sex act involving Mother Theresa and some of the most graphic, vile and vivid depictions of homosexual anal sodomy every put in print." -- Concerned Women for America

  Lynn at WorldMagBlog challenges folks to google this if they think it "case of straight-laced Christian schoolmarms with their knickers in knots." She asks the question I would ask:

  But can not even our gay and lesbian friends on this blog agree that it is not appropriate to assign sexually graphic/pornographic literature to high school students? And, if a teacher is going to assign gay-themed literature, aren’t there more age-appropriate, less sexualized, polarizing choices? Gay activists are constantly arguing that the gay lifestyle isn’t just about sex. Why then assign Angels in America and reinforce the opposite opinion?

Enjoy.

Read more!

An Odd Position

[Wow - a month since I have posted: the damage two jobs do.]

I find myself in an odd position - I find myself defending Hillary Clinton a lot lately. Considering there are no Republicans I feel called upon to defend - and Senator Clinton is a particular target for stomping from both "progressives" and "repugs" - I find myself pondering why I want to defend her.

It must be chivalry.

I receive notification for Townhall.com - and today I read a reaction to Hillary Clinton's speaking at the Saddleback Church AIDS conference.

Kevin McCullough's "Hillary's Purpose Driven Drivel" is, while making some valid points, basically unfair, uncharitable, self-righteous, and essentially unchristian. In saying that, I too may be unfair, uncharitable, self-righteous, and essentially unchristian. That seems to be the nature and danger of secular political engagement for Christians.

Had he simply bashed her politically I wouldn't be writing this. Since he bashed her theologically with a book I care a great deal about, my chivalrous nature has risen to the fore. McCullough called her to task for three quotes - of course taken out of context with no link to a full text of Senator Clinton's speech. However, I will take Kevin's presentation at face value because, well, it is good enough for what I want to say:

Clinton: "My own 'faith journey' is approaching a half century, and I know how far I have to go."

McCullough hits this pretty well from my theological perspective.

Which is an odd thing to consider for the Biblical Christian. For when one thinks about it we know two truths to be the exact opposite of that statement. First the only journey of faith worth taking is not something that requires fifty years to clarify, and secondly none of us - not one - can begin to fathom the gap of "how far" we are separated from God in our state of sin. Understanding this is key of course because in reality we can't "go" any distance to make up that gap. For us to try to ascertain legitimate standing before the God who made us it would be likened to the impossibility of standing on the top of the Empire State Building in New York City and attempting to shoot an arrow from a bow in hopes of striking the target dead center in the middle of the fifty yard line of the Rose Bowl in Pasadena California.

At Street Prophets I hear a lot from theologically liberal Christians, and other religious beliefs, about "faith journeys" - and I ignore it because they have as much contempt for my "make a decision", "pray a prayer", and be "born again" perspectives as I do for the idea that there is a any "journey" that takes us closer to God. Frankly, we can turn from Him or turn to Him - the "journey" is in our day-to-day decisions to do His will in our lives or not.

However, what would Kevin think of this core principle of my theologically conservative Evangelical church:

We are a people of authentic spiritual transformation – demonstrating love, purity, humility, hospitality, generosity and servant leadership.

We certainly do not believe that transformation ever ends. If I say that I am praying that I will allow the Holy Spirit to continue to transform me into more the person God created me to be - would Hillary say "Yes, that is the spiritual journey I am talking about". I have to leave that as a possibility I think

That is, however, about the only point Kevin gets from me - and he screws it up with his next statement:

Clinton: "But I have been blessed in my life, with my family, and in the church of my childhood, to be guided every step of the way."

Now if McCullough had jumped on this because Senator Clinton didn't mention being guided by the Bible, or the Holy Spirit, or God - and settled for her family and her church - I might have been sympathetic. His argument was, well . . .

Would anyone who has tolerated serial adultery, first hand accounts of rape and sexual assault against other women, and an infantile like obsession with never being criticized call their "family" (i.e. the philanderer she's married to and bore a child with) a blessing? And for Bible believing Christians being "guided every step of the way" is a pretty gigantic claim. After all I do not know a single fellow Christian who would claim to live their life in such away as to have reflected biblical guidance through every single step. The more important question being - guided by what? One Clinton's amorous ambition for Hillary's assistant?

First, to be clear, she didn't name Bill Clinton as someone who guided her - and my guess is it wasn't who she was talking about. Next, we are of course supposed to believe that all of the good, and all of the bad, in our life are blessings - and praise God for it all. However, how should she have "lived her life" based on Biblical guidance?

• Divorced Bill Clinton? Certainly she had the grounds Biblically - but isn't it clear scripturally that God hates divorce


• Not forgiven him? Hopefully Kevin doesn't even want to try to make this case.

So, Kevin's prescription for Hillary's actions in the face of Bill's repeated adultery was to divorce him, and not forgive him? What of this Biblical guidance:

1 Peter 3:1 In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then, even if some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word by the way you live, 2 when they see your pure and reverent conduct.

In retrospect, have we heard anything about Bill's further sexual exploits since Monica? Has the grace and mercy Hillary bestowed on him helped him redeem himself and turn away from his adulterous past? Isn't that exactly the grace and mercy God calls us to on nearly every page of scripture? Isn't that the Biblical guidance that Peter gave.

Clinton: "Jesus never asked why someone was sick!"

If Kevin had pointed out that Jesus didn't need to ask; and that He made it clear on at least one occasion that He knew without asking why someone was sick - again he might get some sympathy. And, this point is well-taken:

In her attempt to seem biblically literate she sends the double sided message . . . The message is clear: cure the illness and leave the behavior alone . . . the certain equivalent of curing a child of intestinal parasites that threaten their lives - while then sending them back to their village to drink more fecal tainted water supplies.

Yes, Jesus on more than one occasion offered grace and mercy coupled with the command to repent and do different. However, then Kevin goes here:

Should we do all that we can to cure those who are afflicted? Sure, starting first with those who were infected with the disease through no fault of their own. They get the drug cocktails first.

This is wrong on so many Biblical levels I can only ask if Jesus offered His sacrifice on the cross first for those who were perishing in their sin through no fault of their own.

If Kevin wants to open his Bible and make this case Biblically then I will take it all back. However, I would like to start that conversation with:

The Condemnation of the Moralist

Romans 2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?

Next: "An Oddly Positioned Postscript"

Read more!

Everybody is All a Vitter About Hypocrisy

Pastordan at Street Prophets talked about the theologically conservative Christian view of the Vitter scandal. A couple of folks I read a lot have chatted on the subject, and I thought y'all might like to hear what my ilk herd is saying. The first is Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost: "Larry Flynt vs. David Vitter: Examining the Difference Between Hypocrisy and Moral Inconsistency". A couple of points he made that I find interesting:

Indeed, the American Heritage Dictionary defines hypocrisy as "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness." The British literary critic William Hazlitt once explained, “He is a hypocrite who professes what he does not believe; not he who does not practice all he wishes or approves”

By all appearances Sen. Vitter does indeed believe in such "family values" as marital fidelity. Where he has failed is in behaving in a way that comports with those values; a matter not of hypocrisy but of moral inconsistency. Such consistency is essential--particularly for democratically elected representatives--for establishing and maintaining trust. This is why private behavior has such public implications. The marital infidelity of a legislator, for example, is strong signal that they are untrustworthy: If a man cannot be trusted to keep a sacred vow to an intimate, how can I trust him to keep his word to me, a stranger?

What we desire in a representative is that they be a person of integrity--that their character be a morally consistent whole. A person who is free of contradictory ethical impulses and actions is likely to behave in a manner that is trustworthy. Even if we disagree with their views, we can deduce how they will act and make our judgments about them accordingly.

This is why both Vitter and Flynt agree about the significance of integrity. What separates the two men (besides the fact that Vitter is a man of weak character while Flynt is a despicable pervert) is where they put the emphasis on this trait.

I could post the whole post - but go read it; because the difference he posits between Flynt and Vitter is whether they believe there is anything objectively immoral, or whether all morality is subjective and internal.

The next guy to weigh in is Jeremy Pierce at Parableman with his take on the "Hypocrisy" in this story. There are not particular money quotes in the post, but it to is worthy of a read. He, in talking about moral inconsistency, pointed out a whole 'nother issue brought up by a third place I read: the conservative (ala the law) Volokh Conspiracy quoting Ann Althouse:

I hate seeing people publicly humiliated for the sexual things they do in private. But the government is criminally prosecuting a woman, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, for what it says was a prostitution ring. These are federal charges, and the senator, David Vitter, has some responsibility for the laws that make this prosecution possible.

Vitter situates his misdeed in the realm of religion and private morality: ... "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling... Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there -- with God and them...." ...

Palfrey can't say God has forgiven her and walk free. In fact, Vitter's statement hurts Palfrey because it strongly implies that Palfrey was doing what she's accused of. Vitter's confession -- intended to move us to mercy -- links him to criminal activity, but only she is facing criminal punishment.... It's not a matter to be resolved within the realm of church and family as long as Palfrey is being prosecuted.

Is there objective immorality, or are morals subjective and internal?

Read more!

A Sex Addict's View of Haggard's Fall

If Ted Haggard was in my FMO group and he had given this statement to us to explain why he committed adultery with a male prostitute - what would be my reaction? How do I view his statement as a sexual addict?

First, he would have to be in our group. Some polls have shown that up to 64% of Christian men, pastors included, "struggle with sexual addiction or sexual compulsion including, but not limited to use of pornography, compulsive masturbation, or other secret sexual activity". He would perhaps have taken the test; found out he wasn't doing well; and contacted a group in Colorado Springs; or wherever he was in the US.

Next, we have group guidelines I have to follow (and which are right anyway) which are going to limit how I, and the group, will react [Hopefully :-)].

• Self-Focus: We are here to work on ourselves, not on others. We share our own experience, insights and feelings.
• Respect of Others: We do not advise, analyze or try to "fix" others. Each of us is free to find our own answers.
• Listen: We avoid cross-talk and give each person who shares our undivided attention without offering unsolicited advice.
• Let God Work: We do not preach at members of this group.

So, brother Ted gets busted and comes to us and says:

I am so sorry. I am sorry for the disappointment, the betrayal, and the hurt. I am sorry for the horrible example I have set for you.

I have an overwhelming, all-consuming sadness in my heart for the pain that you and I and my family have experienced over the past few days. I am so sorry for the circumstances that have caused shame and embarrassment to all of you.

I asked that this note be read to you this morning so I could clarify my heart's condition to you. The last four days have been so difficult for me, my family and all of you, and I have further confused the situation with some of the things I've said during interviews with reporters who would catch me coming or going from my home. But I alone am responsible for the confusion caused by my inconsistent statements. The fact is, I am guilty of sexual immorality, and I take responsibility for the entire problem.

Whew, finally. (Sorry brother Ted - what are those guidelines above?) Shame and guilt are a horrible, horrible cycle that leads us to medicate ourselves - usually with same actions we feel shame and guilt over. That is why addictive cycles are cycles and addictive. Feeling sorry is certainly one of the first emotions, but one of the least productive. Now, we get to his taking responsibility; even though he has made excuses for his deceptions and half-truths as the four days progressed. That is understandable though, his entire life has just come apart.

I am a deceiver and a liar. There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark . . .

Sigh. The problem with being repulsed by the darkness inside us is that we stay away from it instead of shining a light on it and examining it. We all have darkness inside of us; all have parts of us that repulse us; and we gain healing, in part, by holding those parts out in God's light and not allowing them to stay in some dark place and fester.

. . . that I've been warring against it all of my adult life For extended periods of time, I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom . . .

I destroyed my first marriage by adultery with prostitutes - although I "gained victory" over this, and stopped the behavior, about 6 months before the behavior was discovered by my wife because of some leftover evidence.

I continued my seeking after sexual gratification separate from intimacy between leaving my first wife and meeting my second. God did a wonderful miracle in my life on the meeting of my wife; and for 14 years I did not struggle with finding other women attractive, a desire for topless bars or erotic massage, or indeed for other women at all. No pornography. A "victory" given me, in an instant, by God's grace alone.

During that 14 years I became a Christian, and I strived to be a good husband and eventually a good father. Four years ago, we got the internet in our home and I casually decided to see what kind of sexual stuff was available - a month later I, with the help of God, turned away from it. I too thought I had experienced "victory" - again.

Then, my wife left me two years ago for reasons not connected to my sexual sin - although my "outing" myself a year after the fact about the internet pornography was a significant part of her pain; and my seeking help a major part of her demands. During the period she was gone, sexual sin exploded in my life: I wallowed in internet pornography; and ran up huge cable bills watching porno on TV. Again, I gained "victory" and got this "under control" with God's help. I joined FMO to appease my wife and prove I "was working on my problems" so we could restore our marriage. I really thought it was "much ado about nothing" - I had, after all, had "victory" through God's strength. Victory (temporary), but not healing [see James passage below]

I now view this as a monster living in a closet in my attic; and that my victories amount to stuffing him back in that closet and getting the door closed again. I have never killed it or cleaned that closet out - and as long as it lives it will gain strength. Ted had the same problem:

Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach.

This is normal. Certainly, as a Pastor in an evangelical, bible-teaching church he understands the depravity of the flesh - so well described by Paul

For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

How often did Ted preach on this passage in his life?

Through the years, I've sought assistance in a variety of ways, with none of them proving to be effective in me.

This I have heard a lot. Some people struggle in this area and never get victory. Paul talked about "his thorn" and God's refusal to remove it from him in order to keep him from spiritual pride:

2 Corinthians 12:5 . . .on my own behalf I will not boast, except in regard to my weaknesses. 6 For if I do wish to boast I will not be foolish, for I will be speaking the truth; but I refrain from this, so that no one will credit me with more than he sees in me or hears from me. 7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself! 8 Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. 9 And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

Apparently, the point of this passage was missed by Ted as well - leading to the problem Paul cites:

Then, because of pride, I began deceiving those I love the most because I didn't want to hurt or disappoint them. The public person I was wasn't a lie; it was just incomplete. When I stopped communicating about my problems, the darkness increased and finally dominated me. As a result, I did things that were contrary to everything I believe.

Now, of course, my little scenario falls apart. Ted isn't in my group - he is one of those men who fell away to deal with their "darkness" on their own.

Anyone in any addiction program understands this. He did not have success in the programs, which caused more shame, so he attempted to "fight it on his own"; or perhaps he thought "I'm Ok really" and could handle it himself. I think he misses another point here - this is something in which he needed on-going accountability; and that could not be his wife - because we all desire to not hurt our spouses and cause them pain (that is a good thing BTW - our wives do not need "all the details" but we need to confess them to someone). Sexual sin is extremely humiliating and painful to our wives; and only by working on it for years can we get to the point that our honesty about our sexual sin will not be painful to them. In the meantime, you must have other men who know how you feel and suffer through what you suffer through to talk to and hold you accountable. Why? God is willing to forgive if we ask:

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

but healing comes by a different process:

James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

And, of course, the darkness will increase and dominate you if you do not continue to act:

With sexual impurity, many times there are no visible consequences for years. However, we cannot escape the fact that we will reap what we sow. Inappropriate sexual behavior that is stimulating or pleasurable now [even just in your thought life], may cause you a great deal of pain later.

What are the consequences if you continue your behavior?

• Loss of self-respect - feelings of shame and the need to conceal your behavior
• Lack of relational intimacy - until you start living with integrity you may not know how differently your relationships and attitudes can look
• Lack of satisfaction in your current relationships
• You may lose your wife, fiancée or girlfriend
• A destructive legacy for your children

If you progress you could:

• Lose your job
• Get arrested
• Lose your reputation

Most of this probably happened to Ted as he spiraled down to the final train wreck..

The accusations that have been leveled against me are not all true, but enough of them are true that I have been appropriately and lovingly removed from ministry. Our church's overseers have required me to submit to the oversight of Dr. James Dobson, Pastor Jack Hayford, and Pastor Tommy Barnett. Those men will perform a thorough analysis of my mental, spiritual, emotional, and physical life. They will guide me through a program with the goal of healing and restoration for my life, my marriage, and my family.

Just a bit more denial there, but that will be going away as well. The program Ted needs is weekly, if not daily, accountability with men who have experienced the same issues. I do not know Dobson's, Hayford's (although he wrote the introduction to Pure Desire - the book my FMO group is working through now), or Barnett's history. I also know such a "thorough analysis" is an on-going, lifetime process that is not going to be handed to Ted on a plate by anybody.

I created this entire situation. The things that I did opened the door for additional allegations . But I am responsible; I alone need to be disciplined and corrected. An example must be set.

This bothers me - a lot. This is his shame and guilt desiring to be punished. No, brother Ted: I desire your healing and the restoration of a loving, unlimited relationship with Gayle that can glorify God - assuming she can reach into God's power and give you his grace and mercy and forgive you. If she divorces you, which you deserve, I hope to help you heal and re-build a life based on an honest examination of your self. I do not need to see you "punished" because that may make you think the problem has reached closure.

Also, he didnt "create the whole situation" - it is far more complicated than that; and he is striving here to again pretend he is in control

It is important that you know how much I love and appreciate my wife, Gayle. What I did should never reflect in a negative way on her relationship with me. She has been and continues to be incredible. The problem is not with her, my children or any of you. It was created 100 percent by me.

I have been permanently removed from the office of Senior Pastor of New Life Church. Until a new senior pastor is chosen, our Associate Senior Pastor Ross Parsley will assume all of the the responsibilities of the office. On the day he accepted this new role, he and his wife, Aimee, had a new baby boy. A new life in the midst of this circumstance - I consider the confluence of events to be prophetic. Please commit to join with Pastor Ross and the others in church leadership to make their service to you easy and without burden. They are fine leaders. You are blessed.

I appreciate your loving and forgiving nature, and I humbly ask you to do a few things.

1. Please stay faithful to God through service and giving.


2. Please forgive me. I am so embarrassed and ashamed. I caused this and I have no excuse. I am a sinner. I have fallen. I desperately need to be forgiven and healed.


3. Please forgive my accuser. He is revealing the deception and sensuality that was in my life. Those sins, and others, need to be dealt with harshly. So, forgive him and, actually, thank God for him. I am trusting that his action will make me, my wife and family, and ultimately all of you, stronger. He didn't violate you; I did.


4. Please stay faithful to each other. Perform your functions well. Encourage each other and rejoice in God's faithfulness. Our church body is a beautiful body, and like every family, our strength is tested and proven in the midst of adversity. Because of the negative publicity I've created with my foolishness, we can now demonstrate to the world how our sick and wounded can be healed, and how even disappointed and betrayed church bodies can prosper and rejoice.

Gayle and I need to be gone for a while. We will never return to a leadership role at New Life Church. In our hearts, we will always be members of this body. We love you as our family. I know this situation will put you to the test. I'm sorry I've created the test, but please rise to this challenge and demonstate the incredible grace that is available to all of us.

There is not much I can say here. He needs to get beyond the shame he expresses in #2 - again, guilt and shame are useless and destructive emotions. Other than that, I hope he finds God's healing and peace.

Read more!

I Decided to Start With Marriage

I decided to start with marriage: mainly because the overriding theme of Ted Haggard's "fall" - or perhaps his rise - is his adultery; and not who he was adulterous with. A complicating factor is the question of whether he married against his basic nature as a homosexual and therefore his vows were dishonest and void. Or, if they were not void - they were doomed to failure because he was in denial and self-loathing.

This is about marriage between followers of Christ - well, at least mostly. There are variations cited in scripture even for Christians married to non-Christians; and everything assumed the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

There are some passages of scripture that are "fundamental" to my understanding of marriage; and that the Holy Spirit has confirmed again and again in my life as true. Let's start with:

Genesis 2:23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

While I may not personally agree, for the sake of this discussion I have no problem

• with those who want to believe that the gender definitions in all of this are fluid.
• if you want to include same-sex marriage in God's definition of one-flesh relationships.

However, I have a problem if you are not willing to "pay the price" the next pieces of scripture imply.

I have direct experience with my wife and I being "one flesh" - this is not about sex (although I believe the sex act creates a marriage - and not the church or society). My wife is "bone of my bones; and flesh of my flesh". We are one entity with two personalities - like Christ and God; and in our unity with God through the Holy Spirit that indwells us both - we form a type of the Trinity that represents the nature of God to the world. Marriage is God's institution for displaying His nature to the world. Of course, we humans succeed in blurring the image we are to present quite nicely and almost always.

Jesus and Paul both branched off the Genesis verse. First, of course,

Jesus

Mark reports (probably from Peter):

Mark 10:4 They said, "Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY." 5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7 "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8 AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 10 In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. 11 And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

and Matthew gives "the rest of the story":

Matthew 19:10 The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." 11 But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

What does this say for Ted Haggard's choices? Or mine? Or yours if you are married? By using the word eunuch, isn't Christ saying that if you are not willing to be married, and married "for life", that you should avoid sex period?

Jesus talked about adultery earlier during the Sermon on the Mount; and made it clear, as usual, that it is our heart - and not our actions - that matter:

Matthew 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, `YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 "If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. 31 "It was said, `WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE'; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

and immediately goes to the heart of what an oath must be:

33 "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, `YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.' 34 "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING. 36 "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 "But let your statement be, `Yes, yes' or `No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.

Paul

Paul cranks "one flesh" up another notch or two - but of course he was writing after the Pentecost so that makes sense. Does our intent matter when we enter marriage - a "one flesh" relationship? Paul was obviously dealing with a Corinthian church in crisis on a lot of levels; including sexually. In his letters to the Corinthians, he corrects them about prostitution and marriage; and points out a deep spiritual reason to "flee immorality":

1 Corinthians 6:13 . . . Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. 14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! 16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." 17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

Imagine God, Christ, and/or the Holy Spirit as a direct participant in your every sexual acts once you have been indwelt - that should give you some pause; and imagine marriage as initiated by the sex act itself - even with a prostitute. [For those interested in what became of the Corinthians after these two letters - see Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians. This, incidentally, was close to acceptance into the Canon]

One last point, which is derived from this one flesh relationship:

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

The idea that our sexual life is under the authority of our spouse, whether we are the husband or the wife, is of course a radical concept - which has never been practiced by all believers and may never be. As much as folks want to separate Paul's teaching from Christ's, the theme of Paul's presentation here is clearly present in and derived from the teachings of Christ.

Of course, that is all really hard teaching which humans care to ignore - because it's hard: "Moses" still allows us to divorce because our "heart is hard". There is some teaching on what I, as a husband, need to do in order to make this work. Maybe that will help:

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself [see also: "The Submission of the Christian Husband"]

Nope, no out there for myself or Ted.

Conclusion

Regardless of Ted Haggard's "orientation", and his honesty about that with his wife, when he got married, he was "in for the duration" and obligated to take "every thought captive" for Christ. There is no excuse for adultery; and if he is divorced he should be celibate for life unless he is reconciled to his wife: he should become a eunuch for the Kingdom of God.

I am as hypocritical compared to this standard as Ted Haggard is: I am teaching this is true while not living up to it - even today. If we are all honest, we all would be hypocritical to this standard (as Christ loved us?) unless we delete part of the standard to save our hypocrisy. Luckily, while we are called to strive for holiness (and are responsible for "every thought and deed" in that), we can rest in the love and mercy of Christ when we fall short. Which, of course, we all will.

* * * * *

Other resources:

• My church recently had a three-part series on marriage :
  • Forever Together I
  • Forever Together II
  • Forever Together III
  This may give some of you a better idea about what some conservative churches talk about when they talk about marriage
• "Christian Marriage" from Mere Christianity
• "The Meaning of Christian Marriage"

Read more!

Overview: Three Posts Coming

[Crossposted from Street Prophets]

Ted Haggard's fall has been fascinating. It has rightfully called up many questions of orientation, marriage, sex, obsession, obedience, works, grace, mercy, and unfounded faith in other human beings. All the more so for me perhaps because I am a sexual addict and understand daily that struggle against "part[s] of my life that [are] repulsive and dark".

Some of the comments at Street Prophets have been good, bad and ugly - and some have succeeded in including all three. Last Saturday I was certain I was going to discuss (1) the Biblical view of marriage between followers of Christ. I promised to do so in response to these two comments: this one:

Here's the deal, JCH : No, I don't think that because someone went into a marriage with illusions means they can suddenly decide to negate the union when cold hard reality hits them.

If anyone could have bailed for that reason, it should have been me when Dana came down with cancer. I was 6 years older than him and had had HIV for 10 years longer than him when we met, and my expectations were 1) newer medications would get us through and 2) I'd be the first to go.

Didn't work out that way, yet I STUCK TO MY COMMITMENT.

But cancer, and his f....d up family, and our illusions were externals.

The internals are that our relationship was founded on the TRUTH about ourselves. Both gay men, both desiring monogamy, both HIV+ - and some other details that are not relevant here.

Externals will always change, that's the nature of existence, but some internals never will (in a given lifetime), and we must make peace with them, or live our entire lives in vain, in service to lies and denial. It is highly unlikely that exclusive orientation (hetero OR homo, and not to be confused with acts) will change in the course of one's life, though it is possible to pretend otherwise and lie convincingly to oneself and others. (I'm intentionally leaving the inherent ambiguity of bisexuality out of this discussion).

Haggard took a vow in direct and irreconcilable conflict with the truth of his internal nature. His relationship with his wife was, is and will forever be a LIE. I flatly refuse to believe that God holds ANY vow so sacrosanct that it cannot be broken when predicated on falsehood, especially SELF-deception. If you honestly believe God does, then I want no part of that God, because He values Appearance over Truth, something Jesus repeatedly preached against.

The only thing I will say at the moment is that I want to examine this definition of internal and external - I do not agree. Wolfie's love, integrity, and unwillingness to abandon Dana were all, of course, internals. The contrast in this week was my pastor talking about a follower of Christ who divorced his wife because she got a double mastectomy after her breast cancer. The other comment in the same thread was this:

"He gave her title to his sex life"?

Oh really?

I'm a former lawyer. I have some idea of what "title" means in a legal way. And I can tell you that the average 22 year old (that's how old Haggard was when he got married) had no idea of what "legal title" was, nor did Gayle Haggard know what she was getting.

I've never seen this kind of thing expressed in the Bible. I think you're reading the American property owning system back on to your belief that marriage is basically sacrosanct, hard to break up except in cases of adultery, that sort of thing. I don't think this is fair to married people to do that.

I did give the scripture in that thread; but the question I probably will never be able to look at is: Did Gayle Haggard know? My wife knows more about the adultery that broke up my first marriage than my first wife knew; knows that I had homosexual lovers before that (both of these the day I proposed); and knows I now struggle with pornography (something I never had problems with before 4 years ago). Why assume Ted Haggard has not, in the past, opened up these struggles to his wife? Do you think she wouldn't have married him and had 5 of his children if she knew? And, are you sure his homosexual desires pre-dated his marriage to Gayle? Of course, some of this is wrapped up in the next coming post.

After Haggard's public confession, I was certain that I was going to discuss (2) my sexual addict's view of what Haggard said. I believe at the moment this will develop as a counter-point to "Ted Haggard Embraces More Lies, Continues 'repulsive and dark' Path"; and will probably mostly center around:

I am a deceiver and a liar. There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life.

For extended periods of time, I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom. Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach.

Through the years, I've sought assistance in a variety of ways, with none of them proving to be effective in me. Then, because of pride, I began deceiving those I love the most because I didn't want to hurt or disappoint them.

The public person I was wasn't a lie; it was just incomplete. When I stopped communicating about my problems, the darkness increased and finally dominated me. As a result, I did things that were contrary to everything I believe. -- Ted Haggard

These statements have so much truth in them about what I and other sex addicts who are followers of Christ experience that I cannot let the other post stand as an explanation of this situation. I am also sorry that this part of Haggard's statement was not included in the other post

Please forgive my accuser. He is revealing the deception and sensuality that was in my life. Those sins, and others, need to be dealt with harshly. So, forgive him and, actually, thank God for him. I am trusting that his action will make me, my wife and family, and ultimately all of you, stronger. He didn't violate you; I did.

This all impacts the third coming post.

The last topic floating around in my head is the concept of early orientations (general) [this post isn't going to happen - the other two sucked the life out of it]; whether we can assume God made us that way; and, in the case of Ted Haggard and myself, whether it is acceptable that we have been led by the Holy Spirit to see our orientations as "repulsive and dark" even though others see their similar orientations as "God-given". If I see my orientations from earliest childhood - that oppose scripture - as coming from "the world, the flesh, or the devil" (and not from God), then am I "living a lie", or am I "self-loathing", if I choose to carry on an ongoing struggle with things that are part of my basic personality which I believe are wrong. Also, more deeply, shouldn't followers of Christ, to some degree, loathe their "self" if it conflicts with the revelation of God, either through scripture or the Holy Spirit? As Paul said:

Romans 7:14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

and the triumphant answer in the next chapter [pardon the long quote - I just couldn't find the place to cut this passage off]:

Romans 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. 12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh-- 13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it. 26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. 28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

I am going to leave this here with just the pre-knowledge to y'all that I will be posting on the three topics above between today and tomorrow; and invite you, in comments to this post, to give me some insight into what you see in these three questions - because, frankly, I am not, especially on the topic #2 and #3, sure what I am actually going to write today and tomorrow.

Read more!

Testimony Part II: It's All Downhill for a Ways

Politics

Two themes govern the next part of my life: politics and sex. There was quite a bit of drug use but it was never really a key to my development. I graduated from high school in 1970. My senior year I had won a debate taking the pro-war side of the Vietnam War. By late April 1971, I was in Washington, DC as part of the Mayday Demonstrations. I had rolled far past being a "peacenik" - by this time I was very radical; and was there to "shut down the government" by blocking traffic in Washington after all the nice people had gone home.

By August of 1972, I was demonstrating from the left against both the Republican and Democratic Partys at their conventions in Miami. Of course, I got a floor pass to the Democratic to watch the show; and was part of the group getting tear gassed outside the Republican so that the gas got sucked into the ventilation system and emptied the hall. I put a paper bag over my head and voted for McGovern that year; after demonstrating outside his hotel in Miami because he blocked a gay rights plank in the Democratic Party platform (plus a few other things). It would be a long time until I voted for a person again.

By this time I was becoming a Marxist (Chinese version). I worked in a radical bookstore in California (so I got to read a lot of theory). I left California heading north in spring of 1973; and lodged in Oregon after getting arrested for violating the H. Rap Brown Act for attempting to get to the AIM siege at Wounded Knee, SD. I became active in a group whose primary radical role was running a very left print shop. People in the group had come together from the Black Panthers, Revolutionary Union, and the Patriot Party. My spiritual slide was complete - at least the philosophical part of it. I never called myself an atheist. When asked I said I felt that made God too important still - I called myself an agnostic not because I didn't know, but because I didn't care and thought it an unimportant question to even pursue or think about.

By 1978, for a variety of reasons my political activism was over - but not because of any real disagreement with Marxism. My first marriage, and the responsibilities of four step-children, and the dismal sectarian state of radical political organizations all put an end to it (the left has always been self-destructive: might have something to say about the validity of the politics).

Sex

I was the nerd in school: glasses, "98 lb weakling", good grades, asthma - so no sports. Most of my friends were jocks. I admired guys that had "the pretty women". It was my goal to be able to do that too; and of course I thought they all were "scoring". I dated the same girl on and off from the summer before my sophmore year in high school until the summer before my senior year in high school. She moved to Ohio.

We lost our virginity together in honor of that event. I went off to church conference in Florida; expecting to be able to see her for about a month before her family left for good. Undying love spoken, she had my ring. After I got to Florida, I found out that her parents found out we had sex - and that she had missed her period and might be pregnant. The mature young man I was, ready for a serious relationship, and wanting to be there to support my girlfriend - I cashed in my ticket home and flew to Ohio to "visit" a friend of mine there and to stay close to a girl I met a conference that I was "in love' with now. I hid there about two weeks until the mother on that end called mine - and they escorted me to a bus. Susan wasn't pregnant.

The summer after my senior year showed the transition. I went to church conference for the last time to see the girl I had met the previous summer. The situation with Roland happened that summer. I would head to college that fall and flunk out by Christmas - much too much time drinking to study. Then, I ran into the guy I won the Vietnam War debate against the year before. Let the politics begin. By April I was at Mayday

Growing my hair long improved my looks. I had a string of sexual relationships in Missouri and beyond. There were any number of bad endings. I met my first wife in the movement in Oregon; and we lived together for about a year before we got married. She was Chicana - freaked my mom out a bit but not bad. She was 11 years older, she had four children. We stayed together for 11 years.

I blew that marriage apart by adultery. I became a sexual addict for nude dancers, massage parlors, and prostitution. I got caught, I got divorced. Within six months of the divorce, I met my second wife. In that six months I had had two more sexual relationships. The plunge was complete.

Next Post: The Road Back to God

Read more!

Homosexuality Part II: Methinks We Protest too Loudly!

Matthew 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 "Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye

What if homosexuality is always sin? The only distinction would arise in comparing a heterosexual couple in a monogamous lifetime relationship with a homosexual couple in a monogamous lifetime relationship. Biblically, any sexual act outside a monogamous lifetime relationship is sin. It doesn't matter whether it is with the same gender or the opposite. However, we will not get to gay marriage or civil unions until the third post.

Right now, let's look at sexual sin. What is more serious biblically - homosexuality or adultery? I am personally an "all sin is equal" kinda Christian - but if ranking is valid then adultery has to be hands down worse than homosexuality because you have betrayed your spouse, a vow to God, and of course committed a sexual sin. Certainly, adultery constitutes a far more serious threat to Christian marriage than homosexuality on any level

Matthew 5: 27 "You have heard that it was said, `YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart . . . 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

and:

Matthew 19: 9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." 10 The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." 11 But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.

I personally committed all of those. This should land enough logs in enough eyes to quiet almost all condemnations of homosexuality by Christians. Been dropping into internet pornography sites? Do you and your spouse have a damaged sexual relationship, and you masturbate to images and/or fantasies of others? Maybe you have sexual fantasies about that women with the low-cut tight blouse or the guy with the tight jeans; and go out of your way to get the best view of the body you "admire"? How about the sensitive and kind person at church (the office, etc) that you compare favorably with your emotionally distant spouse; and feel the heat of a rising passion? Perhaps you are meeting for coffee or lunch (have you mentioned it to your spouse?) with that funny someone who "really understands you"; and your thoughts are becoming sexual about them (or soon will be)? Is this your second marriage, or are you divorced? Was the divorce caused by adultery? If not, are you committing adultery now? If your spouse left you tomorrow, for reasons other than adultery, are you prepared to be celibate for the rest of your life? This last one I had to face last year - it was a bleak and difficult future to envision.

These are the verses closely following Romans 1:26-7:

Romans 2: 1 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. *

* Romans 1: 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

Romans 2: 2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. 3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

I am not really trying to engender guilt. I am trying to engender humility; and an understanding that we all stand in front of an Almighty God imperfect and unable to say much about anything but our own sin.

This author:

"Should opposing the cultural acceptance of gayness be a central task for the Church? Because of the teaching of the Scripture about the task of the Church, I say no."

Does it help the mission of Christ's church to be perceived as hateful representatives of a hateful God when it comes to homosexuality? No.

Homosexuality is not the worst sexual sin, and is only equal to heterosexual sex outside of marriage (how many are doing that right now); and sexual sin is not the worst sin overall. C.S. Lewis:

The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither. -- Mere Christianity

Finally, what if we are wrong? What if Paul really had no clue about committed, loving relationships between people of the same gender, and all he could see was temple prostitution and pederasty? What if gays do feel that orientation from the youngest of ages and that is all right with God? Remember, Paul and the other apostles thought Christ was returning in their lifetime. They had Jesus's revelation to lean on (He of course said only His Father really knew) - and we should live like Christ is returning tomorrow - but still they were wrong about this. How will God feel if we have persecuted gays in His name and He doesn't feel that way? We should always approach judgment and/or condemnation of people based on scripture with "fear and trembling" - or better yet just leave this job to God. I think the wisest thing for Christians to do about homosexuality is to love the sinner; and hate the sin - but keep their mouth shut about the second part in most cases.

Next: Homosexuality Part III: Gay Marriage and Civil Unity (comments allowed at end of series)

Read more!