So apparently yet another high-profile pastor has landed in the center of controversy. Do I think the pastor did solicit sex from a male prostitute? I don't know. I'd like to belive not, especially since he is so adamantly denying it. And of course I hurt to think of someone living such a double-life and undoubtedly hating himself somewhere deep inside.
I have to wonder, though... if he is struggling with this, and if he had or did own up to it, what would be the Evangelical community's response?
It's a tough question. Even tougher is the question of how much has our current religious system in the Western church made it difficult for someone in a high position of authority to resist temptation and have a circle of accountability partners? There seems to be such an emphasis on having your crap all together. No one wants to be led by someone who struggles with these things.
At one of his shows, Matthew Perryman Jones once said that we minister to people out of our brokenness (or something to that effect). Whatever else I may think about the edgy style of Mars Hill Church, I LOVE that Mark Driscoll is so vulnerable with his congregation. Here's my controversial statement of the week:
Churches should be somewhere where someone who is struggling with pornography, homosexuality, transgendered issues, abortion issues, and all those other "shocking" things, can find healing and hope for redemption.
How that is played out varies from church to church and community to community, but if we as a church body are not providing resources for all of us to dig out our sins and junk and hurts, then that's a problem. No one should have to suffer in silence. Ever. Least of all the men and women who have taken on the daunting task of leading Jesus' sheep full-time.
Praise God for his never-failing mercy and grace. May he protect us all from ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Ben Witherington has some interesting thoughts stemming from this issue, or more specifically, on situations where those in church leadership end up in dangerous situations due to their general lack of accountability (often caused by the configuration of their church government, etc). (Note: He doesn't speculate on any specificas about the actual situation with Haggard, btw.)
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/11/looking-haggard-ted-steps-aside.html
I know this causes other problems and is hard to implement in a big church, but this makes me wonder if some congrgational involvement in church government is actually not as bad as it is made out to be these days.
One of the major problems with Evangelical Christianity in America today is that we don't consistantly remind ourselves "I am capable of ANY bad thing I can imagine".
No one is immune to homosexuality, homocide, adultery, paying for plastic surgery and running off to San Fran to make porno...
As RC always says, total depravity doesn't mean you're as bad as you could be, but that all of you is in some way bad and you're capable of falling to any depth.
So is your pastor.
Not sure how an entire congregation watching every move you make can make it easier to have solid accountability. Everyone judges, but no one is willing to/comissioned to help.
Seems an Elder-led church allows for much more healthy accountability without the drama of everyone knowing every little thing that the pastor struggles with... but I'm certainly biased :)
As for our pastor being capable of falling to any depth... but he's British! Doesn't that mean he's infallible? Or at least a notch above all of us Yanks?
The advantage of the presbyterian system is that church leaders are accountable to an external body -- the presbytery. In a congregational church, even if it is "elder-led," the buck stops with the leadership team, with no higher level of governance to hold them accountable.
When I said "Elder-led," I got confused. I keep forgetting about the presbytery. Dang. It's hard switching from SBC to PCA! Anyway, that's what I meant. An healthy system for accountability.
I read in Newsweek last night that Haggard has admitted to buying meth from this other character, but said he didn't use it. RGGHHH!
The whole thing is just way too Clinton-esque. He didn't inhale, and he did not have sex... with... that... man.
It makes me want to scream. Reading Newsweek generally does, though. At least NPR (raised on it), while having a liberal slant, actually employs some logic in its reporting!
Most of the time...
Patricia, you're not going to jump in and talk more about church government styles? You're no fun.
Post a Comment