´óÏó´«Ã½

As The Police, Spandau Ballet, and of course The Rolling Stones etc have shown, there's plenty of money to be made in a comeback. Too cynical?!

Only if Haggard is making his comeback by singing "Police" and "Stones" songs.

It reminds me a bit of the George Michael story. Quite seriously - his media team did a remarkable job of turning bad headlines into good.

GV

How powerful is the media? What control does it have over the church?
I mean - take the homosexuality out of the story. Say a prominent preacher is caught paying for female escorts. Say he had also frequented strip shows.
Instead of Meth, let's say he used marajuana. It doesn't have the same addictive properties.
So what would the media strategy be?
Can the W&T bloggers (seriously) construct a media strategy that would work in the Evangelical world? Or one that would launch a career in the secular world?

You couldn't make it up. Maybe he could have a word with Iris Robinson's Very Lovely Psychiatrist?

For another evangelical who reinvented himself as a critic of the religious right - just when the US media turned on the religious right - see Franky "Son of Francis" Schaeffer.
No accusations of immorality in this case. Moderator take note.

It's not that I'm cynical about wee Frankie's ability to move with the times. But put it this way. If he joins the Taliban, it's time to Panic.
GV

This saga reminds me what Bobby Henderson, creator of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may peace be upon Him) said in an interview once. I was something like

In the religion industry, you can get away with anything.

It seems that with enough pr effort, you can.

But then, why is it dragging on so long? Everyone knows that Ted is completely heterosexual, right?

PK
I can't read what you've written yet. But I feel the cynicism already. Cool trick that.

GV

To say that Richard Dawkins was "shown the door" is putting it mildly. The minister and a couple of his henchmen chased Dawkins into the carpark where they ranted at him about calling their children animals.I did not know who Ted Haggard was at the time but I remember thinking that guy is unhinged.

"In the religion industry, you can get away with anything.It seems that with enough pr effort, you can."

I pretty much agree. Curse the meme for cynicism!

Of course, he is going to fail again. Hopefully his next comeback will be him being public about his homosexuality and help others understand the difficulty of growing up gay in the evangelical community.

he is "a heterosexual with issues".

Hmmmm

and challenging the church to reach out to fallen Christians with love rather than rejection.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

OK, time for an appeal to my fellow evangelicals here.

I watched the you tube video, twice. And yes, yes I know Dawkins isn't setting out to be kind. I know that, like every other film maker, he's going to have his interpretation, his spin, but you know what, I'm as cynical as he is. Haggard's personal life and the issue of repentance aside, what interests me is what evangelicals think the church is. Here are some of the things I saw and heard.

Extract:

Dawkins: "That was really quite a show you gave us today. A fair bit of money seems to have been spent here."

Haggard: "I wanted people to be able to worship and enjoy it and it be in a setting where the speaker is close to them, that's why it is in the round, and so they can be up close to me, and so I can look at them.

Dawkins makes a comment about it being like the Nuremberg Rallies

Haggard replies: "Lots of Americans think of it as a rock concert."

Cut to praise band...

Here's the model, some will be familiar with it.

Stage. Band. Worship leader. Backing singer/s. Choir (in matching shirts). Sound and visual media desk. Video presentation screen (they just happen to have one like an ice hockey stadium.) Low lighting. Programme of events. Tiered and 'surround' seating. Emphasis on 'speaker/preacher'. Info pack for visitors. Multi purpose building/campus centered church.

And here's what it tells us, and it's as plain as the nose on your face obvious; this, the 'show', as Dawkins (and he's not far wrong) called it, is what evangelicals have come to think the church is. This is the public face of the evangelical church, this is where the vast amount of evangelical energy goes and it's the model being rolled out in almost every evangelical church on the face of the planet. If your church doesn't already look something like this, it soon will. This we are being told is progress, this, we are told, is what makes us relevant, and it's supposed to be what will keep the 'young people' involved; this, all to often, is the point of tension in many congregations, it is called (by some) the worship wars. It might be a media marvel, but it isn't the church, and it tells us we've missed the point, and if nothing else will convince us we've missed the point the word I used earlier, 'stage', should encourage us to think again.

It doesn't impress my kids, and it bores me.

At least when you go to Starbucks on a Sunday the Frappachino tastes good.


I hope it fails.

Graham #4

"Can the W&T bloggers (seriously) construct a media strategy that would work in the Evangelical world? "

I'm not sure what you mean, can you rephrase or add to the question?

I find it interesting that Richard Dawkins attacks what he perceives to be a manipulative form of Christianity and proffers that as evidence that belief in God is irrational and even "evil" (whatever that word is supposed to mean in the naturalistic philosophy he subscribes to).

However corrupt Haggard's form of Christianity may be, Dawkins' criticism of it does not invalidate the Bible, the Christian faith, or indeed the belief that there is more to reality than simply matter. The Bible - especially the New Testament - explains clearly that there is such a thing as false Christianity, and that there are false teachers who exploit their followers. So in fact Dawkins' criticism is merely a tacit affirmation of one of the major themes of Scripture.

It really is laughable to witness this bumbling attempt to argue against faith in God. I can't really believe that anyone seriously interested in considering the claims of Christianity could be taken in by someone like Dawkins, and I suspect that he is really only preaching to his own ideological constituency.

Dawkins bemoans the sensationalism of Haggard's form of Christianity, but, in fact, it is Dawkins himself who, through his documentary, is sensationalising the problems within "religion" in order to promote his own rather naive agenda.

(Of course, we know, don't we, that no atheist could ever possibly resort to the methods of group dynamics and manipulation, stirring up the masses and so on! Perish the thought....)

Peter

What would we have our "failed" preacher say and do in public to re-instate his position in the evangelical world?

Here's an example.
I think I'd have him talk about his sin and his failings, and why it "all went wrong," as often as possible. Do this online. It makes the audience feel like investigative journalists.

Christianity Today etc. would try to 'learn lessons from the episode'.
Church leaders (who are not allowed to judge) will leap at the opportunity to practice forgiveness. And to condemn any leader who does judge.
Everyone else will tune in for the gossip.
Above all, it keeps our client in control of the story. Journalists have a limited amount of time (Read "Flat Earth News"). If we're providing the story for journalists it reduces the likelihood of anyone digging deeper.

[This is were Haggard will fall down. There's an incentive for journalists to dig deeper. He **looks** like he's hiding something.]


Then, after a period of time, our leader should criticise the 'repressive' Christain theology and ethics that led to his downfall.
This brings some secular media onside. It shifts blame away from our preacher.

Then publish a book that is *close* to evangelical sexual ethics. But just different enough to be controversial. And keep it highbrow. Anyone who opposes too vociferously will have a closed mind.

Then all you do is wait.

GV

Graham, the homosexuality itself was not Haggard's "sin". It is not that that he has to apologise for.

Peter, you keep making good points, and again I keep coming back to the notion of Jesus with the sheep and the goats. Even poor old LSV is right here - invalidating some forms of christianity does not invalidate the whole lot; mind you, it does mean that christians should look very very critically at some of their idolatries, such as creationism and pentecostalism and "mannafestism" (yes, I'm that generation).

Some of us thought old Ted would learn his lesson and properly "repent", in the sense of turning back from his evil ways of publicly lying to his congregation (in the round, brownshirts and praise bands at the ready, big screen on the go), but he's unable to do that. Some people just *can't* turn from their ways.

I see my posting offended someone who didn't like me insulting their religious views against homosexuality. All I can tell you is.... you're wrong, in exactly the same way that someone who defended slavery from the bible 50 years ago was wrong.

Graham- You don't like the megachurch model; what model is superior? Just curious.

John

"Graham- You don't like the megachurch model; what model is superior? Just curious."

Perhaps you mean me. (see #14) Even if not, here's my answer anyway.

I don't care much for any model. Play the organ, beat the bongo's, turn up in your shorts - not bothered.

Megachurch, minichurch or 'my porridge is just right' church - don't care.

Church in a hall, church on a beach, church in an old shop (went to one of those once), church in a warehouse, church in a cathedral, church on the net - whatever.


The point is, church isn't a model, it's people, we seem to keep forgetting that and maybe we need to drink coffee or watch movies or walk in a forest til we remember. Whatever else we do we let's not take what works for us and roll in out in a six point plan for the world.

Here's an example. Mr. Evancredible has a new (if it's old don't tell me, I don't care) 8 week course to help sort you out (from 'hurts, hang-ups and habits' according the to trailer on the web). And all the *really*, *really* fortunate people who sign up, pay their $39.96 and get to go along (and collect a few freebies on the way) have all this fun ahead of them: 8 sermons (gee), all training materials (wow), success guides (for everybody, we want everybody to be a success) leader coaching (that's a freebie BTW!) discounts (but only if you spend more money) and exclusive savings (presumably if you spend more money).

And that's only one version of the many snake oils for sale on the evangelical market.

I think I have a better idea (sorry, but I do) here it is, talk to someone, be their friend, save your money.

Now that idea is not going to make me an international Christian speaker, but here's the thing, I don't care.

Watch out though, cause mega or mini, Mr Evancredible's 8 week Autumn discipleship malarky (or a version of it) is coming to a conservative church near you soon, why, because we think the church is a model.

Peter, of course it's people. That is all religion has ever been about. Yes, they make up "gods" to worship, and sometimes those myths receive too much prominence - even belief!! - but it all stems from *people*, and that is the point. Many people have forgotten that; it seems you are one of the lucky few to have rediscovered that principle, and it is that that makes the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist (google it ;-) a reality.

Helio

"Church of Jesus Christ Atheist"

Yeah, yeah. How much is the franchise?

And here's a tip...(!)

Get your photo taken (big toothy smile), photoshop a sparkle onto one eye, and perhaps a front tooth, repent online, and wait. Then feel free to whisper a little hallelu... sorry, cha-ching.

Alternatively see Graham's post, he has it pretty much covered too.

Helio
Why do you describe creationism and Pentecostalism as idolatry? Seems an odd statement to make. Christians do not worship creation but the Creator and the spiritual gifts (I take it that's what you mean by Pentecostalism)are manifestations within the Christian community and among Christians. I use glossalalia in my prayer life. Yes, there are fraudalent gifts but there are also genuine.

Oh of course you don't *call* it idolatry, but that is what it is. The idol becomes more important than the thing it supposedly represents. Fits creationism to a T. As for "speaking in tongues", lolling about on the floor, and similar infantile gibberish, yes indeed, it is as psychosomatic as they come - no different from the animistic bottom-waggling of any shaman plucked from the crazed mists of prehistory.

Which brings us back to a point that "religion" (and I explicitly DO include Christinanity in this) would be a spectacularly silly way for any *real* god to reveal itself to a bunch of smart chimps. A *real* god would reveal itself scientifically (and let us fire protons at it).

Now, back to Father Ted. What do we think? Forgive, or recognise that he is continuing in his evil ways (the deceit and hypocrisy of course - not the homosexuality, which is fine)? What of all the people who have been duped by his megachurch? Are they following false religion? Are they contaminated by all this, like the seven sons of Sceva, or the prophets of Ba'al? Should righteous Christians seek demolition orders on these theatres of obscenity?

Helio

Actually, I was more or less saying that homosexuality wasn't the sin in this instance. Or at least, not the sin that's most disturbing.

Adultery, solicitation, abuse of power, illegal narcotics, hypocrisy, deception. The list goes own for some distance before we evben reach homosexuality.

So I just wanted to re-frame the problem, in case we got into another debate about homosexuality. So far, though, we all seem to be agreed that homosexuality isn't the issue. Everyone is agreed that Haggards actions are reprehensible, whatever his sexual preferences.

I will add one thing that disturbs me.Y'all know where I stand on this issue. I'm a die-hard, fundamentalist red-neck. But Haggard is claiming he was 'healed' by reparative therapy.Now what's his underlying premise? That homosexuals **can't help** paying for escorts, taking drugs, abusing their power for sexual advantage?

Take a look over that list again - is it his premise that homosexuals cannot help acting illegally? That they can't help being abusive? Or that those who do act abusively and illegaly need treatment? That homosexuals lack, or may lack, the same faculties that make heterosexuals responsible for their actions?

That's sinister. It goes WAY beyond Iris Robinson. Homosexuality would be redefined as a dangerous social disease. And it looks like a chunk of the church wants to agree with this.

GV

I am worried at the Churches inability to criticise wrongdoing. I've thought about this for a few days. Peter is correct. Richard Dawkins did the right thing - whatever his motives. He only did what evangelicals should have been doing the second this guy tried to rehabilitate himself in the evangelical world.
Even if he is genuinely repentant, he can *never* be restored to leadership. Ever.
The lack of discernment and the inability to judge wrongdoing is absolutely terrifying.
And Will may be on to something. The media now runs evangelicalism. Doesn't it?

GV

H

I've spoken in tongues in private prayer. It's just a way of expressing concepts or moods you can't put into words - not at that time in any case. *In principle* they are open to interpretation.
But sensationalism can become an idol, I'm with you on that one. So I am very wary of how tongue speaking is used in many churches. (Many (most?)Elim keep the sensationalism under control; I'm not attacking Pentecostals.)

GV

#18 - Helio -

"Even poor old LSV is right here - invalidating some forms of christianity does not invalidate the whole lot;..."

Gosh, I got off lightly there! You must be mellowing, Helio, dear chap.

(As for "old" - there's still life in the old dog yet - I'm only 45!!)

I've spoken in tongues in private prayer,

I've been in the company of Christians who have spoken in tongues Graham. I've also witnessed Rory and Wendy Alec talking in gibberish at the drop of a hat on the God Channel, especially when they are looking for money. To me, the whole thing seems somewhat flippant, insincere, and irriverent.

The thing that I can't understand is that on the day of Pentecost, everyone in the crowd understood what the diciples were saying, even though they (the disciples) were speaking in tongues i.e. evryone heard the gospel being preached in their own language. I can't understand a word of these utterences that are supposedly tongues. It makes me suspicious.

For an interesting take on this "charismatic worship" nonsense, I'd heartily recommend Lukeprog's experiences over on Common Sense Atheism. He's actually a rather recent atheist - much more recent, more committed, and more philosophical than poor old Helio (younger than LSV! Whoopee! ;-). Just google it, and read his "My Story". I see a lot in common with myself, but quite a few differences too. He still rates Betty (Craig); not sure of his take on Al. I will admit that even when I was a Christian, I recognised something phoney about "speaking in tongues".

Helio,

Isn't 'Common Sense Atheism' a contradiction in terms?

#18 - helio -

"...christians should look very very critically at some of their idolatries, such as creationism and pentecostalism..."

I am intrigued by the juxtaposition of the words "idolatries" and "creationism". In what way is the idea of a Creator "idolatrous"? And how does a criticism of "idolatry" fit into your philosophy of naturalism? Funny, but I always thought that idolatry involved taking something specific from nature and worshipping that as God. I fail to see how a critique of naturalism - which is what Creationism essentially is - can therefore be "idolatrous". It's the very antithesis of idolatry.

And even more mysterious and baffling is the use of the word "should". Why "should" Christians do as you suggest? Who is telling us to? It can't be God, as he doesn't exist in your philosophy, so who is it that is imposing this requirement on us? (Perhaps it's the "new clergy" - the scientific priesthood of secular religion - who are demanding this of us poor "idolaters"?)

Dawkins was surely being somewhat disingenuous in attacking Haggard as representative of Christianity (or religion) he might as well attack Fred Goodwin.Ìý

Mega-churches, whether in Missouri or indeed in Belfast, bear the same relation to Christianity as Rio Tinto Zinc bears to metal: they see seams to be mined, any potential use or beauty is immaterial, the ability to deliver profit alone matters. The only reasonable questions to ask about such operations relate either, on the one hand, to the effectiveness of their business model or, on the other, to the morality of exploitation.

These institutions are not Christian, their leaders are businessmen not pastors. Lying and deceit are not moral issues they are ratherÌýessential tools of the trade.

Don't worry, I am soon going to stop agreeing with Helio, but Evangelicalism, as I see it commonly manifested, is full of idolatory. What many of its adherents do is construct a model which maps their world and God becomes merely an element, sometimes a very subordinate element, in that model. They test doctrines, actions, people against the paradigm and judge them by their conformity.

I saw this perfectly illustrated after an uncle's funeral which I organised. He was an agnostic veering towards atheism so I chose hymns whose music he would have liked; one was ÌýPraise to the Holiest in the height. Before we had even left the grave-yard a Plymouth Brethren friend of the family told me the hymn was verging on the blasphemous - there being no higher gift than grace.

This is what the tight evangelical model does - doctrinal purity calls the shots even where manifestly inappropriate (and theologically illiterate). The result is a Christianity where the presence and essence of God are at best peripheral. The core features of the model become idols and are venerated while God is relegated to the subs' bench.

Creationism, justification by faith, inerrancy of Scripture, tonguesÌýall can become idols, can be obstacles not just to the proclamation of the Gospel but also very much to experiencing the love of God.

Okay, I'm not an expert on tongues speaking. And the experience came as quite a shock to me as I had been as skeptical as PeterJ.
Still:

*I'm not convinced that the phenomena described in Acts is the phenomena descibed in Corinthians
*My experiences have not been irrational or non-rational. I was expressing concepts or emotions that I could not, at the time, put into words. If someone were to have "interpreted" what I was saying, I would have known if they were off-target.
*With reflection I could *now* put a lot of those feelings into words.
*To that extent, tongues speaking is rather mundane (and it occurs in many religions). The experience is not - but of course reporting that doesn't prove much. It is *not* an ecstatic experience.
*The focus on experience at the expense of everything else leads to sensationalism. I'm not endorsing sensationalism. The God Channel does not even reach the heights of sensationalism. The God Channel is all about "Spectacle".
I've no time for the sensational or the spectacular.

GV

GV- I agree with most of what you just related about tongues-speaking, and it makes quite a lot of sense to me, including that the experience is fairly mundane, that Corinthians was describing something different to Acts, that it isn't 'ecstatic', emotional or even supernatural. I have to say I love the sensational and the spectacular... it's a great sport.

Peter Morrow- Sorry, I did attribute your earlier posting incorrectly.... mea culpa.

John

I'd say it's no more supernatural that prayer or worship. Keeps me out of trouble with Pentcostals.

William Crawley:

I am glad and supportive of Mr. Haggard willingness
to fight again to regain his credibitity....

~Dennis Junior~

#34 - Parrhasios -

"Creationism, justification by faith, inerrancy of Scripture, tongues all can become idols, can be obstacles not just to the proclamation of the Gospel but also very much to experiencing the love of God."

I see your point, but, in fact, according to this reasoning, ANYTHING can become an idol. Dare I say it, but "evolution" can become an idol, likewise liberalism - in fact, the list is infinite.

So it is not "creationism" etc... which are somehow inherently idolatrous, but rather the attitude towards these things. Therefore the original argument (in #18) about Creationism and Pentecostalism being idolatrous is irrelevent, in my view.

OK folks - confession time!

I suppose I'm the blog's major advocate of animistic bottom-waggling - we should have a lot more of it and I welcome it everywhere I see - except in my own church. Horror of horrors - the only tongues I myself have ever used in worship are Elizabethan/Jacobean English and, very occasionally, Latin. I suppose at heart I'm just an old-fashioned traditionalist Anglican.

LSV Anything can become an idol and nothing is inherently an idol. It is entirely, as you say, a matter of attitude. An inappropriate notion of God indeed can be idolatrous.

I do not believe that God requires or indeed notices worship but worship is important for us and it is crucial to our moral fibre that it is directed in an appropriate direction.

re #36 surely in the multi-ethnic society we now live in speaking in tongues could be a useful asset. are there any recorded cases of romanians, lithuanians, poles or nigerians etc (to mention just a few) attending a pentecostal gathering and hearing a familiar tongue from among the outpourings?