OK, since apparently I've run across people who are unaware of this, both inside and outside the family, here you go.
The internet is PUBLIC. Any anonymity is a thin veil that is easy to pierce, and the vast majority of what you post can be read by anyone. In addition, most places where you can post things have the ability for others to post comments on your musings.
Here's a shocker- not all of those comments will be unequivocally supportive. Some will reflect a bit of a dissonance with your views. Some may even be derogatory. On occasion you may find your writings given extremely poor treatment, with aspersions cast upon your family tree or a lack thereof.
If you cannot handle this, the internet may not be for you. Try something else. If you set foot into this electronic space and offer forth your own thoughts, you'd better be ready to deal with what others say about it- sometimes it will be rather blunt, but you're expected to be an adult.
For those who just lurk and read, remember that bluntness and disagreement is not being a jerk, is not being harsh, isn't even being off putting. It's stating a fact, and it may have even been toned down a bit. If you cannot handle this, I likewise might suggest getting off the internet and being quiet while adults are talking.
You don't like what people say, fine. You don't have to. But to act all hurt and whiny because somebody said something in a manner that wasn't full of unicorns and rainbows is just flat stupid- go back to AOL where you belong.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Quick hit of inspiration
I haven't posted much lately, I've been busy.
So, I'll just give you these new words to the tune of the early gen-Xer praise chorus classic, Rich Mullins' Awesome God.
This song is a boring song.
It drones on and on and on.
It goes on way too long.
This song is a boring song.
Repeat eleven times.
Yeah, I'm sure there's some folks about five to ten years older than myself who are horribly offended at thinking that THEIR hip, happening, and contemporary song is "boring," but in a world that has used the word "awesome" to where it no longer retains any meaning, this song has died along with the single adjective it holds up. It's now even worse than the contemporary music only folks thought "The Old Rugged Cross" ever was.
So, I'll just give you these new words to the tune of the early gen-Xer praise chorus classic, Rich Mullins' Awesome God.
This song is a boring song.
It drones on and on and on.
It goes on way too long.
This song is a boring song.
Repeat eleven times.
Yeah, I'm sure there's some folks about five to ten years older than myself who are horribly offended at thinking that THEIR hip, happening, and contemporary song is "boring," but in a world that has used the word "awesome" to where it no longer retains any meaning, this song has died along with the single adjective it holds up. It's now even worse than the contemporary music only folks thought "The Old Rugged Cross" ever was.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Uh, it ISN'T for everybody...
I've recently seen a commercial for the new Honda Insight hybrid. The name "Insight" used to be applied to a tiny two seat commuter appliance (really, the first hybrid on the market), but Honda dredged it back up for a direct competitor to the Toyota Prius. They decided that the reason the Accord and Civic hybrids weren't selling is because people don't just want to drive a hybrid, but they want to be seen driving a hybrid (conspicuous environmentalism). This isn't off base; many Prius owners seemed to revel in the unique design of their car- it was readily identifiable as being environmentally friendly.
Now, in the Honda commercial, they call the Insight "a hybrid for everybody."
Excuse me? A hybrid for EVERYBODY? Really? Will it drive through hub deep snow without so much as a spinning tire? Will it haul eight foot two by fours inside the vehicle? Both of those things I have done with my mini-SUV in the past few months. Will it haul furniture or tow a trailer? I've used full size trucks for those duties (not often, but I've done it). What's that? It won't do any of those things?
Well, I guess it isn't for everybody then. I haven't even examined its sporting capabilities or lack thereof (which can be a bugaboo for others). At best, the Insight is a hybrid for people who would otherwise purchase a four cylinder four door family car. It looks like it would do that quite well, as does the Prius. But as for real cargo hauling, extremely poor weather driving, or fun drives, you're out of luck. It doesn't do that.
Yet, I fully expect the environuts to bust loose redefining my lifestyle to suit what they think I should be driving. "Just rent a truck from Home Depot." If I wanted to do that, I'd still be driving a four door. Sometimes you don't want to deal with the hassle of rentals, you want to toss a bunch of crap in your vehicle and go for it. "Well, if you'd only go out in the winter once the roads are cleared, you wouldn't need four wheel drive." Correct, but there's times when I flat have to be out in it. Some things need to be handled and I can't just wait ten hours. I've been out in every single nasty snowstorm for the past two years (yes, right in the worst of them), and it wasn't because I thought it would be fun. It was because I had something I had to handle that wouldn't and couldn't wait.
I see these arguments when you have extremely fanatical supporters of anything. Mac users like to play this card too- "if you'd just run Parallels you could have your Windows programs covered too." Yeah, but I don't want to. I don't see the point in paying double for the computer and still needing to dual boot the OS because it won't run what needs to be run. The hybrid owners like to reshuffle the lives of others in the ways I've already described. I'll suck up the gas prices if it means getting where I want and doing what I need (and my vehicle isn't all that inefficient, but it ain't ever going to see 30mpg), and I don't have to depend on $4/gallon gas to make the vehicle a good economic choice, either.
Like what you like- you don't have to justify things to me. But neither do I have to justify things to you. Expecting somebody to reinvent their lives just so they will see the point in reinforcing your purchase decision is quite arrogant and incredibly stupid. Nothing is ever one size fits all.
And I used to like Honda as an automaker.
Now, in the Honda commercial, they call the Insight "a hybrid for everybody."
Excuse me? A hybrid for EVERYBODY? Really? Will it drive through hub deep snow without so much as a spinning tire? Will it haul eight foot two by fours inside the vehicle? Both of those things I have done with my mini-SUV in the past few months. Will it haul furniture or tow a trailer? I've used full size trucks for those duties (not often, but I've done it). What's that? It won't do any of those things?
Well, I guess it isn't for everybody then. I haven't even examined its sporting capabilities or lack thereof (which can be a bugaboo for others). At best, the Insight is a hybrid for people who would otherwise purchase a four cylinder four door family car. It looks like it would do that quite well, as does the Prius. But as for real cargo hauling, extremely poor weather driving, or fun drives, you're out of luck. It doesn't do that.
Yet, I fully expect the environuts to bust loose redefining my lifestyle to suit what they think I should be driving. "Just rent a truck from Home Depot." If I wanted to do that, I'd still be driving a four door. Sometimes you don't want to deal with the hassle of rentals, you want to toss a bunch of crap in your vehicle and go for it. "Well, if you'd only go out in the winter once the roads are cleared, you wouldn't need four wheel drive." Correct, but there's times when I flat have to be out in it. Some things need to be handled and I can't just wait ten hours. I've been out in every single nasty snowstorm for the past two years (yes, right in the worst of them), and it wasn't because I thought it would be fun. It was because I had something I had to handle that wouldn't and couldn't wait.
I see these arguments when you have extremely fanatical supporters of anything. Mac users like to play this card too- "if you'd just run Parallels you could have your Windows programs covered too." Yeah, but I don't want to. I don't see the point in paying double for the computer and still needing to dual boot the OS because it won't run what needs to be run. The hybrid owners like to reshuffle the lives of others in the ways I've already described. I'll suck up the gas prices if it means getting where I want and doing what I need (and my vehicle isn't all that inefficient, but it ain't ever going to see 30mpg), and I don't have to depend on $4/gallon gas to make the vehicle a good economic choice, either.
Like what you like- you don't have to justify things to me. But neither do I have to justify things to you. Expecting somebody to reinvent their lives just so they will see the point in reinforcing your purchase decision is quite arrogant and incredibly stupid. Nothing is ever one size fits all.
And I used to like Honda as an automaker.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Raising the BS Flag
Finally, somebody in the media calls BS on the Obama administration's claim that US gun owners are to blame for Mexico's problems.
The claim went something like this: Mexico is suffering from outright lawlessness in the northern regions due to drug cartels. Those cartels are using all kinds of weaponry, and Mexico blames it on the United States' "lax gun laws," and the Obama administration took those claims at face value, apparently thinking that maybe we ought to tighten up our laws in order to help out our southern neighbor.
What is astonishing is that anybody ever gave one bit of credence to these claims.
They're saying that our "assault weapons" (a misnomer for technical reasons*) are being exported to Mexico where they're being used to kill cops. However, that idea misses some extremely important facts.
1) The US gun market has exploded with demand, and the weapons they are talking about are just not available in any kind of quantity. Some claims were that two thousand weapons a day were heading to Mexico. That's complete bull; there isn't that kind of slack in the market. I doubt we're even seeing 2,000/day production, not even 2,000/week from all manufacturers. There are extreme shortages of AR-15 parts (almost no AK type rifles are wholly made in the US). The moment any hit the market, they're snapped up within hours. I've seen it happen. There's just no way that cartels are obtaining those numbers through our retail channels.
2) These weapons are cheaper and more capable from other sources. We aren't cranking out fully automatic rifles (the types being used in Mexico) for domestic consumption. No fully automatic firearm of any kind made after 1986 is legal for civilian ownership. Those that are legal have very tight restrictions placed upon them, and due to the 1986 cutoff date, they are extremely expensive as well (a real M16 in even so-so condition will run at least $15,000; about 10-15x what they would run without that ban). Meanwhile, real AK-47 and M16 rifles are available for far less in the world's arms markets. If the cartels have money (they do), they can get far more of them for far less from other sources. If these weapons are coming through the US, they do so through our notoriously porous ports and are taken south immediately. Lawful gun ownership has nothing to do with these.
3) There's been no proof offered. Mexico claimed it, AG Eric Holder and Secretary of State Clinton repeated it, but nobody has ever shown one single shred of evidence to support this wild claim that the US is supplying the weapons.
Friends, what we have here is a LIE. A particularly damnable one, too- we aren't talking stretching the truth to get votes, we aren't dealing with exaggerations in order to build support for social programs. We are talking complete fabrications and outright falsehoods for no other reason than to limit the freedom of Americans in order to do nothing more than make a symbolic gesture to a foreign nation that itself has a culture of corruption. Even if you have no interest in owning one of the guns in question, you should still be outraged.
Do you want to know why the NRA and politically active gun owners were so strongly opposed to Obama? This is it. He claimed that he was a friend to gun owners, but a few short weeks into his first term his administration is laying a groundwork of untruths in order to infringe upon a right that the Supreme Court recently said was reserved to the individual. Some "change."
* "Assault weapon" is a term bandied about by the news media and other ignorant people to refer to any firearm they would like to get banned. Very often they add modifiers, such as "high powered" to it to make them seem extra scary. "Assault weapons" do exist, but they are currently reserved for the military- the actual definition is "a fully automatic intermediate cartridge weapon." Fully automatic weapons fire more than one shot with each pull of the trigger; semi automatic weapons only shoot one shot with every trigger pull. The media love to confuse the two. As I said, fully automatic weapons are regulated like nothing else in this nation. "Intermediate cartridge" means that the power of the round falls in between a pistol round and a full power rifle cartridge. The 5.56x45mm round is the one used by most AR-15s. It is far more powerful than regular pistol rounds (like the .45ACP or 9x19mm). It is far less powerful than the .30-06 or .308Win, two of the most popular rifle rounds used for deer hunting. If the 5.56 is "high powered," what does that mean for grandpa's deer rifle, which hits harder and had over double the range? The previous, now expired, "assault weapons ban" of 1994 only banned certain combinations of features, and even the FBI admitted it had no affect on crime. If they seek to ban the AR-15, which makes a pretty useful small game rifle (or the AK type weapons, which is quite competent for deer at shorter ranges), then the bolt action .30-06 is likely to be next, since it is a "very high powered long range sniper rifle."
They only give these names when they seek to make you a criminal for having one. If you're able to be trusted with a single shot .22 rifle, you aren't likely to be a problem even if you get your hands on a fully automatic M16. If you're going to cause trouble with a M16, you likely are hell on wheels with a basic Swiss Army Knife. The entire gun banning argument is based on logical fallacies. Don't let them lie to you.
The claim went something like this: Mexico is suffering from outright lawlessness in the northern regions due to drug cartels. Those cartels are using all kinds of weaponry, and Mexico blames it on the United States' "lax gun laws," and the Obama administration took those claims at face value, apparently thinking that maybe we ought to tighten up our laws in order to help out our southern neighbor.
What is astonishing is that anybody ever gave one bit of credence to these claims.
They're saying that our "assault weapons" (a misnomer for technical reasons*) are being exported to Mexico where they're being used to kill cops. However, that idea misses some extremely important facts.
1) The US gun market has exploded with demand, and the weapons they are talking about are just not available in any kind of quantity. Some claims were that two thousand weapons a day were heading to Mexico. That's complete bull; there isn't that kind of slack in the market. I doubt we're even seeing 2,000/day production, not even 2,000/week from all manufacturers. There are extreme shortages of AR-15 parts (almost no AK type rifles are wholly made in the US). The moment any hit the market, they're snapped up within hours. I've seen it happen. There's just no way that cartels are obtaining those numbers through our retail channels.
2) These weapons are cheaper and more capable from other sources. We aren't cranking out fully automatic rifles (the types being used in Mexico) for domestic consumption. No fully automatic firearm of any kind made after 1986 is legal for civilian ownership. Those that are legal have very tight restrictions placed upon them, and due to the 1986 cutoff date, they are extremely expensive as well (a real M16 in even so-so condition will run at least $15,000; about 10-15x what they would run without that ban). Meanwhile, real AK-47 and M16 rifles are available for far less in the world's arms markets. If the cartels have money (they do), they can get far more of them for far less from other sources. If these weapons are coming through the US, they do so through our notoriously porous ports and are taken south immediately. Lawful gun ownership has nothing to do with these.
3) There's been no proof offered. Mexico claimed it, AG Eric Holder and Secretary of State Clinton repeated it, but nobody has ever shown one single shred of evidence to support this wild claim that the US is supplying the weapons.
Friends, what we have here is a LIE. A particularly damnable one, too- we aren't talking stretching the truth to get votes, we aren't dealing with exaggerations in order to build support for social programs. We are talking complete fabrications and outright falsehoods for no other reason than to limit the freedom of Americans in order to do nothing more than make a symbolic gesture to a foreign nation that itself has a culture of corruption. Even if you have no interest in owning one of the guns in question, you should still be outraged.
Do you want to know why the NRA and politically active gun owners were so strongly opposed to Obama? This is it. He claimed that he was a friend to gun owners, but a few short weeks into his first term his administration is laying a groundwork of untruths in order to infringe upon a right that the Supreme Court recently said was reserved to the individual. Some "change."
* "Assault weapon" is a term bandied about by the news media and other ignorant people to refer to any firearm they would like to get banned. Very often they add modifiers, such as "high powered" to it to make them seem extra scary. "Assault weapons" do exist, but they are currently reserved for the military- the actual definition is "a fully automatic intermediate cartridge weapon." Fully automatic weapons fire more than one shot with each pull of the trigger; semi automatic weapons only shoot one shot with every trigger pull. The media love to confuse the two. As I said, fully automatic weapons are regulated like nothing else in this nation. "Intermediate cartridge" means that the power of the round falls in between a pistol round and a full power rifle cartridge. The 5.56x45mm round is the one used by most AR-15s. It is far more powerful than regular pistol rounds (like the .45ACP or 9x19mm). It is far less powerful than the .30-06 or .308Win, two of the most popular rifle rounds used for deer hunting. If the 5.56 is "high powered," what does that mean for grandpa's deer rifle, which hits harder and had over double the range? The previous, now expired, "assault weapons ban" of 1994 only banned certain combinations of features, and even the FBI admitted it had no affect on crime. If they seek to ban the AR-15, which makes a pretty useful small game rifle (or the AK type weapons, which is quite competent for deer at shorter ranges), then the bolt action .30-06 is likely to be next, since it is a "very high powered long range sniper rifle."
They only give these names when they seek to make you a criminal for having one. If you're able to be trusted with a single shot .22 rifle, you aren't likely to be a problem even if you get your hands on a fully automatic M16. If you're going to cause trouble with a M16, you likely are hell on wheels with a basic Swiss Army Knife. The entire gun banning argument is based on logical fallacies. Don't let them lie to you.
Monday, March 30, 2009
I wonder what the prophets would have thought...
I tend to be pretty cynical, and as such I am continually astounded by the tendency of companies to sell any old garbage, thinking Christians will purchase it because they've slapped on a Jesus Fish or some other religious symbolism. I'm even more annoyed when those companies turn out to be right.
But this has to take the mother loving cake.
I wish it were a joke, but I don't think it is.
Apparently if you are too busy to keep up a prayer life, for a low subscription fee, you can have a computer "say" a prayer on your behalf. Several religious groups are supported, and there are a few different standard prayers you can have said for you. The prayers are voiced by a computer using text to speech technology, and as they say, it's up to God to honor them.
Is this blasphemous (their FAQ says "consult your local clergy")? No. Is it absolutely stupid, so much so that anybody who might do this is in need of an immediate brain reboot using a shovel to the noggin? Yes, emphatically so.
Some might say "well, what does it matter if the prayer is voiced?" Well, keep in mind that prayer occurs in the context of a faithful relationship between God and the believer. This service is pitched to those who are forgetful or too busy to pray- if you're too busy to take a couple minutes to pray these short prayers, the "faithful" part of it is in serious doubt. If you think a computer is any kind of replacement for you, you can forget the "relationship."
Let's cast this in a different light- do you think your spouse would accept a computerized phone call on your anniversary? The computer would tell your spouse that you love him or her dearly, and you could even personalize it with the name of your spouse? Do you think your wife or husband would accept that?
Yeah, I thought not. So what makes a person think that God would accept it?
Should the company be shut down? I don't really care- I'd be pleased if nobody subscribed and it went under, because it would show that there actually is stupid crap that Christians won't buy in the expectation that it will being them closer to God. It would indicate that those who care that prayers are said have enough respect for God that they do it personally.
But I'm afraid some will do this actually thinking that God would find this an acceptable substitute for real prayer. It's nothing more than a modernized version of the Tibetan prayer wheel, but with an extra helping of cynicism by the company. But then again, if a person is foolish enough to go for this, I have the feeling that their prayer life is pretty miserable anyway. If you want to pray, take the time, get to a quiet spot, and talk to God as you would a friend (remembering that He is God, there should be some respect there). There's no tricks to it.
Might God grant these prayers? He can do what He chooses, but that doesn't mean that folks aren't being idiots.
But this has to take the mother loving cake.
I wish it were a joke, but I don't think it is.
Apparently if you are too busy to keep up a prayer life, for a low subscription fee, you can have a computer "say" a prayer on your behalf. Several religious groups are supported, and there are a few different standard prayers you can have said for you. The prayers are voiced by a computer using text to speech technology, and as they say, it's up to God to honor them.
Is this blasphemous (their FAQ says "consult your local clergy")? No. Is it absolutely stupid, so much so that anybody who might do this is in need of an immediate brain reboot using a shovel to the noggin? Yes, emphatically so.
Some might say "well, what does it matter if the prayer is voiced?" Well, keep in mind that prayer occurs in the context of a faithful relationship between God and the believer. This service is pitched to those who are forgetful or too busy to pray- if you're too busy to take a couple minutes to pray these short prayers, the "faithful" part of it is in serious doubt. If you think a computer is any kind of replacement for you, you can forget the "relationship."
Let's cast this in a different light- do you think your spouse would accept a computerized phone call on your anniversary? The computer would tell your spouse that you love him or her dearly, and you could even personalize it with the name of your spouse? Do you think your wife or husband would accept that?
Yeah, I thought not. So what makes a person think that God would accept it?
Should the company be shut down? I don't really care- I'd be pleased if nobody subscribed and it went under, because it would show that there actually is stupid crap that Christians won't buy in the expectation that it will being them closer to God. It would indicate that those who care that prayers are said have enough respect for God that they do it personally.
But I'm afraid some will do this actually thinking that God would find this an acceptable substitute for real prayer. It's nothing more than a modernized version of the Tibetan prayer wheel, but with an extra helping of cynicism by the company. But then again, if a person is foolish enough to go for this, I have the feeling that their prayer life is pretty miserable anyway. If you want to pray, take the time, get to a quiet spot, and talk to God as you would a friend (remembering that He is God, there should be some respect there). There's no tricks to it.
Might God grant these prayers? He can do what He chooses, but that doesn't mean that folks aren't being idiots.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Blessed Subtractions
Wow, been almost a month since the last post.
Whoops. You'll get over it. And if you don't, I really don't care- I've been busy finishing off some AR-15 builds, and that means that I'm very likely better armed than you. So deal.
Things have been also a bit stressful at church. In times of transition it is surprising just how many people come unhinged. It is also rather discouraging to see previously decent folks begin to act like selfish children who have somehow obtained an adult's capacity for deceit. Hardly the sort of thing that Jesus wanted.
So, the malcontents are leaving and it seems that things are calming down (there's another couple folks stirring the pot, but they'll get over it). And so you get to the title of the post. While you won't find a preacher ever saying in public that they're glad anybody has left, if you get one in private, he might just admit that there's many people that the congregation is better off without. Sure, better for them to stay and change to be more Christlike, but they aren't changing. In that case, don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out. We may miss what efforts or funds you did give, and we will miss the boost in the attendance numbers, but we'll find people to replace you who do enjoy being part of the community. Often the first step to new growth is for some people to leave- often people you weren't sure if you'd be able to grow without.
Blessed subtraction,
Goodbye you jerk.
Now we can actually
Get back to real work.
Now we move forward,
Things will be fine.
You've finally left us
We've opened the wine.
This is my story, this is my song.
We feel so much better, now that you're gone.
This is my story, this is my song.
Your complaining went on far too long.
Whoops. You'll get over it. And if you don't, I really don't care- I've been busy finishing off some AR-15 builds, and that means that I'm very likely better armed than you. So deal.
Things have been also a bit stressful at church. In times of transition it is surprising just how many people come unhinged. It is also rather discouraging to see previously decent folks begin to act like selfish children who have somehow obtained an adult's capacity for deceit. Hardly the sort of thing that Jesus wanted.
So, the malcontents are leaving and it seems that things are calming down (there's another couple folks stirring the pot, but they'll get over it). And so you get to the title of the post. While you won't find a preacher ever saying in public that they're glad anybody has left, if you get one in private, he might just admit that there's many people that the congregation is better off without. Sure, better for them to stay and change to be more Christlike, but they aren't changing. In that case, don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out. We may miss what efforts or funds you did give, and we will miss the boost in the attendance numbers, but we'll find people to replace you who do enjoy being part of the community. Often the first step to new growth is for some people to leave- often people you weren't sure if you'd be able to grow without.
Blessed subtraction,
Goodbye you jerk.
Now we can actually
Get back to real work.
Now we move forward,
Things will be fine.
You've finally left us
We've opened the wine.
This is my story, this is my song.
We feel so much better, now that you're gone.
This is my story, this is my song.
Your complaining went on far too long.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Can you believe this guy?
I don't know how many of you all have been following the Ted Haggard saga. In short, he was the lead minister of a rather large church in Colorado. Not long ago he was dismissed from his position due to allegations regarding methamphetamine and a male prostitute. Recently more allegations have arisen regarding an ongoing relationship with a male volunteer.
Teddy has gone on record as saying his sexuality doesn't fit into "stereotypical boxes."
I may be a minister, but I like to think of myself as reasonably well educated and fairly well rounded (not just physically). The Kinsey report on human sexuality claims that human sexual preference is not a dichotomy; that is, it is not all heterosexual or all homosexual. Kinsey contends that there is a spectrum, and that people may be placed at various points. For example, one person may be 100% heterosexual, another may be mostly hetero but not fully opposed to the idea of a homosexual relationship, another may be perfectly bisexual. So, with this background (and don't get all offended because I'm talking about this- if you get all bothered about a preacher knowing this stuff, this blog isn't for you- go bug Dobson), let's talk Ted Haggard.
Apparently he is most certainly not 100% hetero. He may claim that he is "complicated," but he seems to only be complicated to himself. Everybody else recognizes that he like a bit of man-love every now and then. Now, whether you believe that homosexuality is a sin and wrong or not is beside the issue here, because I think everybody is overlooking one VERY important point.
Ted is MARRIED.
Yes, he has a wife. And kids. Presumably, his wedding vows included some variant of "forsake all others until the day we die" or somesuch (not too many vows don't). That being the case, his sexual preferences suddenly become irrelevant. The man has been cheating on his wife (the poor woman), and he doesn't seem to be all that remorseful about it. He's been a little too promiscuous to be able to take him seriously on this matter.
Taking into account Kinsey's spectrum, it's apparent Ted lives somewhere in the middle- obviously he isn't fully homosexual, since he does have a wife and is trying to make a go of that relationship. That still doesn't excuse a thing- if he is attracted to others, he has still taken a vow to control himself when attracted to anyone else, male or female. It is important to remember that sexual attraction is sexual attraction, be it hetero- or homosexual. A person can fight the urge (and win!) to act on impulses of attraction, period. It doesn't matter if the attraction is to a person of the opposite or the same gender. I make this point because it seems to me that people are treating homosexual attraction as an uncontrollable impulse. I would contend that it is no different from heterosexual attraction; homosexuals just don't seem like they're that significantly different from those of us on the hetereosexual team. Seems to me that both sides have every bit the capacity for self control as the other (and the lack thereof, too). A temptation or impulse doesn't suddently become irresistable because there's another gender involved- it just doesn't seem reasonable. The entire Haggard story seems to have focused on the homosexuality while ignoring the infidelity aspect, and in my opinion, that's missing most of the point.
He says he's had a hard time finding work, especially church work. No surprise. Even if he went to a group who views the Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality as obsolete, he is still known for cheating on his wife. Whether you think homosexuality is wrong or not, that's a pretty big black mark. I can't imagine a congregation that would hire a guy who has run around on his wife as blatantly as that. He may believe that he has some useful ministry to give, but he has tossed away any shred of moral authority he possessed by treating his marriage like that.
Now, preachers tend to get looked at more closely than most. I understand that. In some ways, I agree with that- not every way, but some of them. The one thing they impressed upon us time and again in ministry training was that if your family falls apart, your skills and talents in ministry are irrelevant, since nobody wants to hear from you. Treat your family poorly, and you are useless to the church (church leadership would do well to remember this- give the preacher time to spend with his family, if he doesn't have a happy and solid home life, it WILL negatively impact the church). Homosexuality aside, here is where Haggard failed.
Now, lest I pontificate too much, I am reminded of a story told me by a preaching professor. He told of a young minister and an old minister discussing a colleague who cheated on his wife and thus lost his position. The young guy remarked "Man, you have to wonder what kind of guy would do that." The old minister looked at the young fellow, and after a pause he said "We're ALL that kind of guy." The moral of the story- every single minister, male or female, preacher or children's minister, must be constantly on his or her guard. You can never once relax too much in the presence of a member of the opposite sex (who is not your wife or husband). You can't ever say "it can't happen it me," because in that moment you open the door. Granted, for some this may be a greater temptation, but this is one of those items where not one of us can see ourselves as "the stronger brother" (as Paul put it). You're either on your guard, putting up defenses, or you're undermining them and just one opportunity away from destroying your career, family, and friendships.
Haggard is an extreme case, but he's an example of somebody who wasn't specifically determined to hold it together. He has become a punchline to jokes about hypocrites (and to be sure, he has earned it). But homo- or heterosexuality aside, the man had taken a vow to his wife, and did not just bend it, but snapped it over his knee. And he seems to have the gall to wonder why no church wants anything to do with him. He should be shocked if any DID.
Teddy has gone on record as saying his sexuality doesn't fit into "stereotypical boxes."
I may be a minister, but I like to think of myself as reasonably well educated and fairly well rounded (not just physically). The Kinsey report on human sexuality claims that human sexual preference is not a dichotomy; that is, it is not all heterosexual or all homosexual. Kinsey contends that there is a spectrum, and that people may be placed at various points. For example, one person may be 100% heterosexual, another may be mostly hetero but not fully opposed to the idea of a homosexual relationship, another may be perfectly bisexual. So, with this background (and don't get all offended because I'm talking about this- if you get all bothered about a preacher knowing this stuff, this blog isn't for you- go bug Dobson), let's talk Ted Haggard.
Apparently he is most certainly not 100% hetero. He may claim that he is "complicated," but he seems to only be complicated to himself. Everybody else recognizes that he like a bit of man-love every now and then. Now, whether you believe that homosexuality is a sin and wrong or not is beside the issue here, because I think everybody is overlooking one VERY important point.
Ted is MARRIED.
Yes, he has a wife. And kids. Presumably, his wedding vows included some variant of "forsake all others until the day we die" or somesuch (not too many vows don't). That being the case, his sexual preferences suddenly become irrelevant. The man has been cheating on his wife (the poor woman), and he doesn't seem to be all that remorseful about it. He's been a little too promiscuous to be able to take him seriously on this matter.
Taking into account Kinsey's spectrum, it's apparent Ted lives somewhere in the middle- obviously he isn't fully homosexual, since he does have a wife and is trying to make a go of that relationship. That still doesn't excuse a thing- if he is attracted to others, he has still taken a vow to control himself when attracted to anyone else, male or female. It is important to remember that sexual attraction is sexual attraction, be it hetero- or homosexual. A person can fight the urge (and win!) to act on impulses of attraction, period. It doesn't matter if the attraction is to a person of the opposite or the same gender. I make this point because it seems to me that people are treating homosexual attraction as an uncontrollable impulse. I would contend that it is no different from heterosexual attraction; homosexuals just don't seem like they're that significantly different from those of us on the hetereosexual team. Seems to me that both sides have every bit the capacity for self control as the other (and the lack thereof, too). A temptation or impulse doesn't suddently become irresistable because there's another gender involved- it just doesn't seem reasonable. The entire Haggard story seems to have focused on the homosexuality while ignoring the infidelity aspect, and in my opinion, that's missing most of the point.
He says he's had a hard time finding work, especially church work. No surprise. Even if he went to a group who views the Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality as obsolete, he is still known for cheating on his wife. Whether you think homosexuality is wrong or not, that's a pretty big black mark. I can't imagine a congregation that would hire a guy who has run around on his wife as blatantly as that. He may believe that he has some useful ministry to give, but he has tossed away any shred of moral authority he possessed by treating his marriage like that.
Now, preachers tend to get looked at more closely than most. I understand that. In some ways, I agree with that- not every way, but some of them. The one thing they impressed upon us time and again in ministry training was that if your family falls apart, your skills and talents in ministry are irrelevant, since nobody wants to hear from you. Treat your family poorly, and you are useless to the church (church leadership would do well to remember this- give the preacher time to spend with his family, if he doesn't have a happy and solid home life, it WILL negatively impact the church). Homosexuality aside, here is where Haggard failed.
Now, lest I pontificate too much, I am reminded of a story told me by a preaching professor. He told of a young minister and an old minister discussing a colleague who cheated on his wife and thus lost his position. The young guy remarked "Man, you have to wonder what kind of guy would do that." The old minister looked at the young fellow, and after a pause he said "We're ALL that kind of guy." The moral of the story- every single minister, male or female, preacher or children's minister, must be constantly on his or her guard. You can never once relax too much in the presence of a member of the opposite sex (who is not your wife or husband). You can't ever say "it can't happen it me," because in that moment you open the door. Granted, for some this may be a greater temptation, but this is one of those items where not one of us can see ourselves as "the stronger brother" (as Paul put it). You're either on your guard, putting up defenses, or you're undermining them and just one opportunity away from destroying your career, family, and friendships.
Haggard is an extreme case, but he's an example of somebody who wasn't specifically determined to hold it together. He has become a punchline to jokes about hypocrites (and to be sure, he has earned it). But homo- or heterosexuality aside, the man had taken a vow to his wife, and did not just bend it, but snapped it over his knee. And he seems to have the gall to wonder why no church wants anything to do with him. He should be shocked if any DID.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)