![]() |
| Huck and Jim |
Cheshire takes this idea Twain presents and applies it to the scandalized, defrocked, and now self appointed pastor Ted Haggard. According to Cheshire, Haggard is like Twain's Jim, a social outcast, and like Huck Cheshire proclaims, “Fine then I'll go to hell with Ted.” This is supposed to be a moving moral stance on the part of Cheshire, and this sort of thing seems to appeal to the sentiment of a large number of people. Given the majority of reactions from folks in the comments section of the article, Cheshire seems to have hit a double in the bottom of the 9th. There are a myriad of comments from readers about “Not kicking the wounded...” or things like “We need to lift up those who are hurting...” and "The Church has been really bad at lifting up its fallen" and so on.
The problem isn't Ted, and his train of indiscretions, it's those pesky "Pharisaical" people who don't think he should be in ministry anymore. Well, here I am.
The majority of readers seem to think that supporting Ted's self appointed return to ministry is akin to “going outside of the camp” with Jesus to be outcasts with Him (Heb 13:13). The problem here is that not everyone "outside the camp” shouldn't be there. Some people should be outside of the camp, and those in the camp need to stay far away from them. Here it is good to ask, "Whose idea was that again?" It was God's idea (Levit 13:1-14:6, 1 Cor 5). Do people remain out there forever? Ideally no.
In order to agree with Cheshire's mawkishly sentimental argument, the reader needs to forget the fact that Jim is a runaway slave and as such is breaking an unjust law, which is no sin at all. Whereas, Ted was a minister of the gospel, regularly visiting a male prostitute for roughly a year and doing methamphetamine with said male prostitute. To go outside of the camp with Jim is akin to going outside of the camp with Christ, both were men unjustly condemned. Ted is another matter. But hey, let's not let the details get in the way of pretending we are the protagonist.
Can Ted come back to the Church? Of course, and assuming he has shown repentance he should be returned to a full communicant member status. But that's not what is going on here. This article isn't about restoring Ted to the table, it's about accepting his return to leadership. Now, this may come as a surprise to the "Just love him man!" crowd, but the Bible has things to say about the qualifications of those in leadership. Oddly enough there is nothing in there about being a “great public speaker”, or a “charismatic personality”, or someone who can “really get the crowd going”, none of that is mentioned. What is mentioned (1 Tim 3, Titus 1) are things like being, “blameless”, “vigilant”, “sober”, “of good report” and “not selfwilled”.
Now let me ask this, what is it that Millions of people in America and around the world think of when they hear the name “Ted Haggard”? Do they think, “Ah, now there is a blameless and vigilant man”? People think those kinds of things about Billy Graham. What is it that comes to mind when people hear names like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, and Ted Haggard? Whatever it is it isn't anything close to what it expected of Christ's ministers in the Bible, and as such they have no business whatsoever entering leadership again.
But that never seems to stop these folks, in the case of Ted Haggard, his former church in accordance with trying to be wiser than God decided it would be a good idea to have a “restoration process” for Ted, not to the table, but to leadership. I wonder if Ted ever was even barred from the table? Not likely, the flurry of sophomoric outbursts about not, “Kicking people when they are down” would be too much for the church leadership to bear. The marrow of this though is that Ted bailed on the restoration process, declared himself healed and ready to re-enter the pastorate, and stomped off starting his own church. Maybe I'm out on a limb here, but doesn't that sound kinda self willed?
![]() |
| Ted Haggard |
Do ministers of the gospel sin? Of course. "Blameless" and "Of good report" obviously don't mean "sinless". What is clearly in mind is a man of scandalous character, who through his actions as a professed Christian has a bad report. More can be said on this but for the sake of space I will desist.Suffice it to say that a man who self-identifies as being "Bi-Sexual" and says things like, "I used to think the church was the light of the world, [...] But I've completely lost my faith in it." probably shouldn't be in ministry (source).
To wrap this up, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Faye, Todd Bentley etc. are not wounded, or hurting, they are not the victims here, they are culprits. The true victim here is Christ's name. That seems to be entirely lost in the talk about “Poor Ted, nobody likes him.” What about the glory of Christ which has been smirched by this man's conduct? As noble as it is to stand by the outcast and the wounded, that's not what's going on with the restoration of Ted Haggard. What the article by Cheshire really represents is yet another case of being nicer than God, which is really just presumptuousness.
But in the end I'll just be accused of not understanding the "heart of God" and of being a Pharisee, for taking the Bible seriously.


Here I am again, but not to argue whether or not he should be in leadership. I'm still not sure about that one. But I am wondering where you are getting that he bailed on his restoration process and stomped off to start a new church. I read that part of the process was that he leave Colorado and never come back (which doesn't sound at all like restoration to me) and that he did quit the process after some time to move out of town to the church of one of the people overseeing his "restoration" where he continued being accountable to this person for another year or two before he started his church. Still, not arguing your points but not sure you got your facts straight. I read wikipedia and this:
ReplyDeletehttp://tedhaggard.com/about/crisis-facts/
Hey Lindsay, I appreciate your input. That Wikipedia account was really telling, I mean he was confronted by the charges and what does he do? He lies to everyone rather than repenting, even letting James Dobson go to bat for him when Ted knew that the charges were true. But the male prostitute, unfortunately for Ted, had him on his voicemail asking for meth. That to me makes any account given by Ted suspect, he's a liar.
ReplyDeleteThe church had to pay out over six figures to the guy to finish his contract and a severance package, this is right there on the Wiki article. Part of the stipulation attached to this money was for him to say in AZ to work on his restoration. Ted agreed to this stipulation and accepted the money. He later bailed on the restoration and then moved back up in the Springs in 2008. By bailed I mean the people he was supposed to be accountable to said he still needed counseling, from an article on the Christian Post:
"Early last year [2008], just months into his recovery program, the overseers had indicated that the restoration process could take years.
"New Life recognizes the process of restoring Ted Haggard is incomplete and maintains its original stance that he should not return to vocational ministry," read the statement".
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/haggard-ends-restoration-process-with-overseers-31105/#qgukBkhmw81YqiWH.99
So by "bailed", I mean that Ted ended the process against the wishes of those he was supposed to be accountable to. That is not submission, so that's what I mean by "bailed".
On another note, it just seems the more I read about the guy the more disgusted I am with him, Ted has been regularly cashing in on his scandal through books about it, an HBO documentary about it, and TV appearances. It kind of reminds me of OJ Simpson's book "If I did it"
ReplyDelete