Only Human

News recently surfaced of another previously-undisclosed inappropriate sexual encounter between Ted Haggard, former pastor of New Life Church (an Evangelical church in Colorado), and a young male volunteer. If memory serves, Haggard, who was also previously the president of a nationwide Evangelical association, resigned a year or so ago after a separate sexual indiscretion was brought to light.

This kind of news hearkens back to the infamous escapades of Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker and others. Revelations of this sort used to shock me, but not anymore.

My lack of surprise stems not from the fact that this type of revelation seems to pop up with some regularity, nor from any belief that Haggard is a phony, money-grabbing rascal. He may or may not be; that’s not for me to decide. He (nor those of his ilk who have gone before him) is not the type of minister to which I am drawn or attracted, but I would never presume to know his spiritual foundation or depth.

I no longer am surprised at such news because I reached a place some time ago where I realized that men such as this – like all of us – are (get ready for this) HUMAN. All of us, regardless of our occupation or station in life, are subject to temptation. And when we succumb, there are usually consequences. The severity of the consequences usually depends on the severity of the action.

Those of us who subscribe to traditional Christian theology are of the belief that man has a basic depravity problem (sin) for which there is only one remedy (Jesus Christ). I believe that when we trust in Christ, He can help us overcome the basic problem, but I do not know many (if any) Christians who do not struggle with temptation and, from time to time, give in. This is not to excuse or in any way diminish the impact of actions such as Haggard's.

On the contrary, it is indeed tragic when something like this happens in a church and especially when it involves someone in a position of leadership. I do not know anything about Haggard, other than what I have learned through the media, nor do I know anything about his church. But I would guess there are people in this particular church body who are hurt and dismayed, and rightfully so. One wonders what kind of accountability Haggard had. Was he a “senior” pastor and was he so vested with power and insulated from others that he was able to hide these actions while continuing in his pastoral role?

Or, was he was just so good and so smooth that, despite any kind of authority he might have been subject to, he was able to carry on until he was eventually found out? Or perhaps he was particularly good at denial (something with which a lot of us also have some experience). I do not know the answer. Whatever the case, it is incredibly sad.

I guess it all comes down to being accountable. Just as governments and businesses have processes and procedures in place to assure that one person does not exert too much power and authority, most churches have (or should have) structures in place to assure the same.

I have belonged to three churches in my life – a United Methodist church where I grew up, and two non-denominational churches, the present one being an offshoot of the one of which I was a part in Arkansas.

Methodist churches are not autonomous. Rather, they all “report up,” if you will, to some governing body of the denomination, which assigns their pastors and probably supports them in other ways (it has been a long time so I am not up on how they do everything, but I think that is the general idea).

Some churches are “congregational” in nature, i.e. the church members actually have a vote on matters of importance. Having never been a part of such a church, I am not sure how that works. I would guess communication between leadership/staff and parishioners would be crucial.

My current church, like the one I attended in Arkansas, is completely autonomous, not part of any denominational affiliation and is governed by a body of “elders” who become qualified according to New Testament principles. We do not have one senior pastor, but, rather, several teaching pastors who share various duties including preaching/teaching at services.

All of these systems I just mentioned seem to have built-in accountability and some semblance of checks and balances. In my own church, I particularly like having more than one pastor and not having one with seniority over the others.

One matter with which I disagree with my current church is that all of the elders and teaching pastors are men. I used to agree with this but, after meeting some wonderful female pastors and studying the subject more carefully, I am now fully supportive of and believe in women having leadership and pastoral positions in the church. In fact, I believe this is one way that systems of accountability can be stronger. With their God-given distinctives, women contribute their own unique perspective as well as wisdom and discernment that are extremely beneficial when problems arise (I know this first-hand from being married to a very wise female).

This, however, is not a deal breaker for me. Obviously, a church is a private, voluntary organization. I am free to go elsewhere if I so choose. Even though I disagree with the position of my church’s leadership on this subject, I understand that it comes from their sincere belief in the interpretation of certain Scriptures. Our leadership in no ways believes women and men are not equal; they just believe in differing roles. I happen to take a different view but for now I can, in a civil manner, agree to disagree.

Hearing news such as this about Ted Haggard is no surprise, but it certainly underscores the human nature of all leaders and the importance of accountability, whatever that might look like in a particular church body. No system is fool-proof and Haggard’s church might have had all the right pieces in place, only to have him circumvent the process.

Those of us who follow Christ have to remember that those in positions of leadership in our churches are human, just as we are. We support them and we pray for them, but our ultimate hope should not be in them.

A New President

I wrote a comment on Debby's blog today and vented a bit. I realize now I should not have chosen that forum but, rather, should have made it a post on my own turf. Sorry, Debby, I did not mean to hijack your comment board for my own personal feelings. I should do that here.

Today President Obama was inaugurated. I awoke this morning and prayed for him and his family. I really do wish him the best and am hoping against hope that he can guide this country into better times.

Anyone who has read my stuff here knows I did not vote for the man. And I wish today that John McCain had been inaugurated instead of Barack Obama. But I have to live with the election results.

What is frustrating me is all this talk about "uniting the country" as if Barack Obama had thought this up on his own. Please. It's a wonderful thought and I am in favor of it, but this concept is not original with Barack Obama.

At 51 years old, I have lived through a few presidential elections and a few inaugurations. I do not remember one that did not include something about "coming together," "putting aside our differences" and "uniting." Every new President includes those sentiments in his inaugural address and, depending on his oratorical skills (think Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton; not so much Nixon, Carter or either of the Bushes), many of us believe for a while that it might actually happen.

A lot of the "uniting" happens due to circumstances. When Richard Nixon finally left office disgracefully in 1974, the country seemed to heave a collective sigh of relief.

Under the President who left office today, we became united on Sept. 11, 2001 after we were attacked on our own soil. That unification lasted for a while but it did not last. And most of his detractors won't even admit that he had a hand in not only uniting us (for a time) but also in helping to keep us safe -- beyond what most of us can even fathom.

Did we become united after Clinton disgraced the office of President by his little extracurricular relationship just outside the Oval Office? I don't think so. He was so angry about the whole thing that he, with his extraordinary persuasive skills, managed to marshall his forces and finish his second term with some amount of dignity still intact. But those who were sickened by his antics still remained and that, I believe, is what helped George W. Bush defeat Al Gore (at least in the electoral college) in 2000.

So today Barack Obama takes office and, cheered on by the adoring media and many celebrities, the perception is that we are coming together. I do not object to that, but I do not think Barack Obama should get credit for a concept that did not originate with him or for rhetoric as old as elections themselves.

Brrrrrrrrrr!!!!!

Baby it's cold outside!

Debby writes on her blog this morning that it's 6 degrees in Pennsylvania! Well my heart just bleeds for ya, because it's 7 here in Middle Tennessee and us southern wusses aren't used to this kind of thing! Ralph the Dog and I stepped out for our walk about 6 a.m. and I can tell you he got his affairs taken care of in short order and we were back inside rapidly!

It's so cold they closed school! Yes, that is not a misprint. Now that's a little much but all the schools in our area are shut for the day. Guess there was concern about the little ones who stand out waiting for the bus. There are several "snow days" built into the calendar but "cold days?!" Like I said, we're pretty much pansies down here when it comes to this kind of cold.

Younger Son is enjoying the beginning of a 4-day weekend since Monday's the MLK holiday. This is one of my telecommuting days so I don't have to get out much. Actually, we're due a heat wave by 5 p.m. when it's supposed to climb up to about 19.