Pres. of National Assoc. of Evangelicals accused of sexual relations with gay hooker

My opinion is that most of the people who speak out in harshest terms against some sort of moral issue, are most often externalising some sort of internal conflict.

It may be a conflict that they win or lose, and they may or may not be able to admit the truth to themselves, but it just strikes me as classic transference. That may not be the case all the time but there really is something not right about someone who feels it is their duty to tell people how bad they are constantly. I mean if God can forgive, so why can't these people and why are they obsessed with only one specific type of sin.

I do think rhester observation is correct but for me it shows that people who are in a position of moral leadership need to be squeeky clean before they speak. Being two-faced like this if it is true or in the case of Foley is something that people really don't like.

(By the way, every time I see your name, rhester, I can't help but think of Hester Primm from the scarlet letter. I get a bizare visual of some lady with a white bonnet and a dour fire-and-damnation preacher on a pulpit. Just had to throw that in.)

 

Um, busted.

 

until some actual proof comes out you can just call me doubting thomas. honestly, i would probably trust a male prostitute more than an evangelical pastor but i really need more than him coming out and making these claims. show us a love-letter or play a phone message and than the allegations wont seem so baseless.

the pastor stepping down doesnt mean he is guilty - but it dont mean he is innocent either.

 

It doesn't help.

 

I wonder if he pitches or catches?

 

howbout a stained dress?

 

So here we have an exploding (gay) sex scandal reminiscent of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker, yet no mention of it on Drudge. If an angel falls in the conservative forest and Drudge doesn't link to it, did it really happen?

-- TPM Reader DK

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

 

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W6rSjrBhUIA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W6rSjrBhUIA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

 

I'm confused ~ so President Bush had sex with Haggard every Monday?

 

Holy crap thadeus, that video is CREE-PAY.

 

Haggard + Bush = Sweaty Manwich for Jesus

 

Pardon me while gouge out my mind's eye.

 

SFTU.

 

I certainly agree that it’s important to remember that he’s innocent until proven guilty, but I think you make some very good points about situations like this when the accused is actually guilty. Unfortunately the judgmental approach is also used for just straight power and control. If you keep your members in a state of fear, guilt and shame, in relation to you, not God, then you can control them much more easily. You can tell them what to do and they will obey. You can tell them to give money to you and they will. There’s nothing new to this approach, of course. The Medici Popes were partying up a storm and selling indulgences to pay for it back around 1500. Hypocrisy in the leadership was a big issue in Christ’s time too, see Matthew 23.

You shouldn’t expect perfection in any church leader, though, and they shouldn’t claim to be perfect, but they also shouldn’t willfully break laws and do things they know are wrong either. To tie in with another discussion, even if he’s guilty we still don’t have the right to judge him, but if he’s broken laws he should be prosecuted, and if he’s broken the rules of his organisation he should be removed from his position. These are actions based on man made law, however, and are not about judging him as a human being.

 

Kinda unrelated but Fallwell was on CNN and said something to the extent of:

"What Foley did was not nearly as bad as what Clinton did".....are you f'in kidding me???

with this guy though....i just love the freakin irony.

 

In theory I don't disagree but in fact if this guy is guilty (I'm not sold on that yet) he has as much or more damage to his cause than all the years of preaching. I wish that weren't the case but it really is true.

I can't tell you how many years I was put off of considering religion as a direct result of the circus of Jim & Tammy Fay, and Jerry Faldwell’s politicking back in the late 80's. It shouldn't be the case but it is.

 

You are quite right, unfortunately, and I had a fairly similar experience myself with respect to organised religion. I think this is what makes it so important for good Christian leaders to teach people that Christianity is about following Christ, not about following church leaders, and first and foremost that it’s about love an compassion, not hard hearted judgmentalism. As soon as Christian leaders get judgmental they expose themselves as hypocrites, and worse, and that does a huge amount of damage to countless people who are turned away from Christ and what he really taught as a result. You can see the cynicism in this thread alone by people who assume that this guy is a judgmental SOB who got caught doing what he has doubtlessly self-righteously condemned others for, and they assume that because they’ve seen so many Christian leaders who have acted like that before. If these leaders believed in a true literal interpretation of the Bible, however, they wouldn’t overlook passages like this:
Romans 2
1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

 

The power, strength and integrity of any organizaton resides in its membership not in its leadership.

 

I've been reading some about this.

Sounds very sad.