Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CrimsonLine

Sexuality and Christian belief (Was: Homosexuality and the Bible)

Recommended Posts

: To all others, please forgive the digression.

Because the thread had been hitherto tangent free?

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At any rate, one thing I am continually reminded of throughout this discussion and/or debate is that there is positively no space in the scriptural text ever made for a same-sex marriage. ...it exclusively defines it in terms of male coming together with the female. Thus, arguments for homosexual marriage do, seemingly, have to create a new space for it.

The same could be said of the computers we are using to discuss this, or of the prawn sandwich I had for lunch.

Responses like this suggest the vast, vast gulf between two sides that seem at times not to be speaking the same language.

Do you really want to suggest that the nature of marriage, like the silicon and other raw materials of the world over which we have dominion, or like the animals given to us for food, is something over which we have jurisdiction, something we are free to take apart, chemically alter, and generally reconfigure into whatever new form suits our whims?

Suppose someone wants the definition of marriage to include a year-by-year renewable contract. Or an open arrangement in which we set up house but are free to date others. Or your relationship with the prawn sandwich you had for lunch.

If you say "That's not marriage," does that mean you're against computers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no matter how much some of you might assert that "fertility is good," i think things would be incredibly different if men were somehow able to physically experience what women go through in pregnancy and labor. (No offense meant, but I have a sneaking feeling that the Vatican would switch its stance on contraception and maybe plenty of other things, too.) Sadly, women in developing countries - i.e., most of the world - don't have access to anything like the medical help that we do for the many severe problems that can present during both pregnancy and childbirth. (I have to wonder what the WHO's stats on deaths from toxemia and similar causes are like for developing countries - very high, I'd wager.)

Look, I'm as Protestant as the next guy, but your comment on the Vatican (and I'm not one who considers it sacriledge to insult the Vatican) is on a par with, "but he where's a dress! Waddaya want?" Really now, isn't this just the sort of cheeky, unanswerable, and too cute by half sort of criticism that is beside the point? One could say the same thing about a childless woman who agrees with the Vatian too. It is also a slap that ignores and by ignoring them, dismisses the millenia of applied reasoning from scripture and those who have reasoned before, whether one agrees or not. I'm sorry, but when I hear such a locution employed in the MSM, I assume either lazy rhetorical skills on the part of the spokeswoman, or that she considers herself magically above the necessity of addressing those who object to her prejudice. I've always enjoyed much better from you.

It seems just plain wrong for anyone to be lecturing the less fortunate (i.e., most of the population) of the earth to not use contraception, for all kinds of reasons (including trying to prevent the spread of - and deaths from - all forms of HIV). If and when well-off people start paying out of their own pockets to feed, clothe, educate and provide medical care for the children of said countries, then ***maybe*** they might have some excuse for all their fulminations on how nobody should use artificial contraception - imo.

Again, I am probably closer to your views on this, but, ah, we do. Who funds the cloud of locusts that are NGO's? The WHO, WMF, WCC, UN organisations, Health Ministries of the EU, Doctors Without Borders? Need I go on? Who funds the para-church oranisations that feed, clothe, and minister to the needs you list. There are few sources in the world for that kind of money. This is an objection that seems heedless of the evidence of the funds.

Edited to add: I think statements like the following are utterly cruel and serve no purpose but to harm those being spoken of (emphases mine):

The selfish woman who does not bear children, or who has only one or two or three, cheats her husband and deprives him of the joy which should normally be a Father's. ...Actually, homes without children are likely to be unhappy homes, likely to end in divorce.

Might be a *tad* fairer if there were injunctions to those husbands to help their wives by caring for all those kids instead of leaving it up to the women... (I could go on and on; better stop.)

Oh, so you ignored my post immediately above. I think that I said something similar with a touch of tact.

Edited by Rich Kennedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...there is positively no space in the scriptural text ever made for a same-sex marriage. ...it exclusively defines it in terms of male coming together with the female. Thus, arguments for homosexual marriage do, seemingly, have to create a new space for it.

The same could be said of the computers we are using to discuss this, or of the prawn sandwich I had for lunch.

Do you really want to suggest that the nature of marriage, like the silicon and other raw materials of the world over which we have dominion, or like the animals given to us for food, is something over which we have jurisdiction, something we are free to take apart, chemically alter, and generally reconfigure into whatever new form suits our whims?

No, not at all. I meant that there are lots of things we don't find a precedent for in scripture, such as computers. The challenge for us is what to do when new situations arise. And I would argue today's homosexual relationships represent such a situation.

Suppose someone wants the definition of marriage to include a year-by-year renewable contract. Or an open arrangement in which we set up house but are free to date others. Or your relationship with the prawn sandwich you had for lunch.

If you say "That's not marriage," does that mean you're against computers?

Well aside from the fact that that's not what I'm saying anyway, then no, of course not. We all look at modern things such as computers on a case by case basis. Which is why we would both agree that computers are OK (or at least neutral), but biological weapons are not.

I would simply argue that modern homosexual relationships can be OK provided there's lifelong commitment, monogamy and fidelity there.

As an aside, where would most of you stand on a same sex couple who are abstinent but in love and want to live together. I'm sure a few of you would say it's pastorally ill-advisable, but in terms of right and wrong. And is it ever acceptable (even if, again ill-advisable) for them to hold hands? Kiss?

Matt

Edited by MattPage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e2c: Great. Many women feel that way about the Catholic Church. I will refrain from sharing how many men feel about certain types of reasonably respectable women. The point is, excepting the delicately vailed politically correct language, there isn't a dime's worth of difference, or rhetorical worth, between the locution about men being able to give birth and the result of dawning new epiphanies, and John R. Rice's quotes on small families and childless women. It's the same clueless crap about another gender, really. It doesn't advance anything like an argument. I could just as easily say that the Episcopal Church is the pathetic entity that it is precisely BECAUSE women have been elevated to its leadership. It certainly has become much more unchurchlike since a woman has gotten her hands on the controls. And worse in ways not relevant to the subject of this thread as well. I am not saying that at all. The TEc problem is much more complicated than the ordination of women. One could make a case for its desperate situation while completely ignoring WO and many do. EDITTED OUT INTEMPERATE LANGUAGE BY POSTER, SADLY LATER.

It isn't always about gender. Gender is not the prism of truth.

It would be a pleasure to experience an argument on gender issues in any church at all, based on the learned affirmation and negation of the issues and foundations of the original reasons for the policies in question! And here is how this tangent again becomes relevant to the discussion. Doctrine really shouldn't be about politics. Once the politics of the day becomes the reason for change, for action, a church is guaran!&#%teed of losing its way and becoming out of touch with His Spirit.

Edited by Rich Kennedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accept it's difficult to build a cast iron case for that based solely on scripture, but that's mainly because the case for no-sex outside of (and particularly before) marriage is not that strong within then Bible.

I'd say the Biblical case for chastity outside of the confines of marriage is very strong indeed.

Lets hear it then.

Is it really that tough? Even the apocrypha argues for no-sex outside of marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But in your response to Stephen, you suggest that contemporary homosexual relationships are a new development. I find that perplexing, but I'd love to hear you expound upon it.
If I can jump in for a moment...

There are ongoing studies into whether the incidence of innate homosexual orientations-- specifically among males-- are on the rise. Some of the hypothesis suggest modern medicines, environmental toxins and chemicals in food may be contributing to a variety of hormonal issues in pregnant women that have a direct effect on fetal development. This of course is only a theory at this stage, but there are concerns that other anomalies (and I do consider homosexuality an anomaly) such as autism, appear to be rising as well.

The common retort among religious opponents would be that gays are simply more comfortable to publicly identify their sexuality now, in a culture that has rejected traditional morality-- a convenient and woefully deficient explanation, imo.

Regardless, in this sense, the issue of homosexual orientation may indeed be a "new" phenomenon and we may be addressing something that did not exist in former generations.

But even if scientific study proves this, say in the next ten years , would it really change anything for the staunch defenders of "traditional morality"?

Edited by Greg P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well aside from the fact that that's not what I'm saying anyway, then no, of course not. We all look at modern things such as computers on a case by case basis. Which is why we would both agree that computers are OK (or at least neutral), but biological weapons are not.

What does that have to do with what marriage is? Marriage is not a "modern thing."

As an aside, where would most of you stand on a same sex couple who are abstinent but in love and want to live together. I'm sure a few of you would say it's pastorally ill-advisable, but in terms of right and wrong. And is it ever acceptable (even if, again ill-advisable) for them to hold hands? Kiss?

I'm tempted to compare the advisability of two SSA-affected men setting up house to a single man and woman (without SSA) setting up house ... except that the single man and woman could conceivably (ha!) wind up getting married down the road.

One would get a step nearer to the truth if you compared it to a man and a woman setting up house when one or both of them was/were otherwise married (e.g., with a spouse away at war). Maybe not intrinsically unchaste, but certainly highly proximate to sin and scandalous ... and if you progress to holding hands or kissing, obviously you've crossed into unchastity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But even if scientific study proves this, say in the next ten years , would it really change anything for the staunch defenders of "traditional morality"?

FWIW, there are studies that indicate that people who live in cities have increased susceptibility to impulses and reduced resistance to temptation. They also reach puberty sooner, among other things.

Today's urban environments could thus be construed as a new moral situation unanticipated by the Bible and other sources of ancient morality. Does this mean that we can and should rewrite the laws of morality for modern urban environments?

The high effectiveness of modern contraception (and disease protection) is certainly a new situation. It's hard to see in this new situation why old rules about fornication and fidelity, obviously rooted in the biological consequences of such acts, should be considered a big deal today.

Edited by SDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWIW, there are studies that indicate that people who live in cities have increased susceptibility to impulses and reduced resistance to temptation. They also reach puberty sooner, among other things.

Today's urban environments could thus be construed as a new moral situation unanticipated by the Bible and other sources of ancient morality. Does this mean that we can and should rewrite the laws of morality for modern urban environments?

Even if these studies you're citing are true, I fail to see how increased susceptibility to temptation constitutes anything "new". Temptation still involves the element of choice. Biological/genetic anomalies don't involve "choice" anymore than skin color or IQ.

My response to Ryan was that science may soon prove that the phenomenon of innate homosexual orientation is entirely biological and the result of certain modern, chemical factors. In that sense, it could represent a new phenomena; possibly just like autism or other sensory integration anomalies which appear to be occurring on a more widespread basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for "gender," I wish it was that simple! (Re. problems in TEC and other churches.) It isn't - but it's also true that women tend to be the ones who go to church, who provide a great deal of the backbone of support and so forth in most church programs - in most any denomination you could name.

And it always has been thus. OTOH, the church has never been about proportional representation, or representation at all. It has been about obedience to God and drawing many to Himself.

Just because things have gone badly in TEC (in your view, and maybe in mine - I can't really comment, because I know very little about the circumstances and people you're referring to) doesn't automatically mean that *everything* will go badly if women have parity with men in terms of church policy (including statements on doctrine) and decision-making. (But people are people - I'm no fan of choosing someone based solely on their gender.) It does help, though, to have more or less equal representation - at least, it ought to. Whether that actually works in any given situation has as much to do with individual personalities - and politics - as anything else.

Yes, and I have said as much above. There is an uneasy alliance at the moment between those supporting WO and those opposed in the new provisional province of secessionists from TEc. Most low church orthodox Anglicans in America are not bothered by WO.

Still, I think it's important to work towards parity. And I don't think voicing frustration with the way things are now (in many denominations, not just the Roman Catholic church) is a cheap shot.

Right, but the thing about having the experience of childbirth is quite the routine cheap shot trotted out at socio/theological impasses all the time.

Anyway... it's not the 1st time you and I haven';t seen eye to eye, Rich, and I'm sure it won't be the last. smile.gif But I do appreciate you - and your pov - even when I disagree intensely with what you say.

Cool. Thanks.

e2c: Great. Many women feel that way about the Catholic Church. I will refrain from sharing how many men feel about certain types of reasonably respectable women. The point is, excepting the delicately vailed politically correct language, there isn't a dime's worth of difference, or rhetorical worth, between the locution about men being able to give birth and the result of dawning new epiphanies, and John R. Rice's quotes on small families and childless women. It's the same clueless crap about another gender, really. It doesn't advance anything like an argument. I could just as easily say that the Episcopal Church is the pathetic entity that it is precisely BECAUSE women have been elevated to its leadership. It certainly has become much more unchurchlike since a woman has gotten her hands on the controls. And worse in ways not relevant to the subject of this thread as well. I am not saying that at all. The TEc problem is much more complicated than the ordination of women. One could make a case for its desperate situation while completely ignoring WO and many do. That is why I find your, uh, (I don't want to dignify it with the word "argument") locution to be so beneath your usual level of contribution and not worthy of this duscussion. It is cheap point scoring at the expense of a gender. It isn't always about gender. Gender is not the prism of truth.

It would be a pleasure to experience an argument on gender issues in any church at all, based on the learned affirmation and negation of the issues and foundations of the original reasons for the policies in question! And here is how this tangent again becomes relevant to the discussion. Doctrine really shouldn't be about politics. Once the politics of the day becomes the reason for change, for action, a church is guaran!&#%teed of losing its way and becoming out of touch with His Spirit.

Please note, all who read this. Some of the immediate above is intemperate and if not personal, absurdly close to a personal affront. I have editted out what I thought was over the line above and have replaced it with an explanatory note.

Edited by Rich Kennedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e2c,

Your observation that the Catholic Church's position on artificial contraception might be different if women were in higher leadership is hard to really engage with, because behind the observation, there seem to be Protestant assumptions about the nature of the Church and how, and why, her leaders are chosen.

Some Protestants think that the "male leadership" issue in the Church is merely a matter of historical, patriarchal power and privilege. Orthodox Catholics believe that the reason that the Pope is male, and that Cardinals, Bishops, and priests are male, is because 1. Christ chose male apostles, and in apostolic succession, the Church obeys His example, and 2. In the Catholic Church, priests represent Christ, a man, to the congregation. Women cannot play that exact same theological role in the Church, not because they are "lesser" but because of the fact of Christ's maleness.

In the same vein, because a woman cannot be Pope, theologically speaking, women will never pronounce authoritatively in the Church on artificial contraception (other than by speaking what the Pope has spoken on the matter). For that reason, speculation about what be different if women had greater leadership authority in the Church is simply that-- speculation-- to informed, orthodox Catholics (men and women), because they know that Catholic theology, itself, precludes female Popes and priests.

There is also the fact that more than a few Catholic women actually support the Church's stance against artificial contraception. Professor Janet E. Smith is a visible and articulate example. The fact that a married couple does not use artificial contraception does not, in and of itself, mean that the wife will be perpetually pregnant. If followed correctly, Natural Family Planning has a 99% accuracy rate, in terms of predicting fertile and infertile times in a woman's cycle. (I have heard testimonies from men, describing how much more sensitive and observant they became to their wives' bodies and cycles, as a result of practicing NFP.) Obviously, there is also abstinence, if and when a couple chooses.

Edited by Christopher Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it always has been thus. OTOH, the church has never been about proportional representation, or representation at all. It has been about obedience to God and drawing many to Himself.

When obedience to god translates to obedience to all-male hierarchies on issues that matter to women, all-celibate hierarchies on matters pertaining to sex, etc--surely you can't be surprised when many of us raise critical questions about to what degree people are attempting to preserve existing power relations rather than serve the kingdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it always has been thus. OTOH, the church has never been about proportional representation, or representation at all. It has been about obedience to God and drawing many to Himself.

When obedience to god translates to obedience to all-male hierarchies on issues that matter to women, all-celibate hierarchies on matters pertaining to sex, etc--surely you can't be surprised when many of us raise critical questions about to what degree people are attempting to preserve existing power relations rather than serve the kingdom.

Yet, so many of us are surprised when someone raises a critical question about to what degree people are attempting to preserve existing forms of desire rather than serve the kingdom. This is the pastoral nut a few layers of the onion beneath the more gendered questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When obedience to god translates to obedience to all-male hierarchies on issues that matter to women, all-celibate hierarchies on matters pertaining to sex, etc--surely you can't be surprised when many of us raise critical questions about to what degree people are attempting to preserve existing power relations rather than serve the kingdom.

Sure, I understand. In fact, some of my rebellion in my twenties and early thirties was over frustration at not being listened to as a youth, single person, and young single person not wanting to be a virgin. Bluntly, I realized that I was wrong. It wasn't about me. It is not supposed to be. It is about Him. I realized this, fortunately for this interaction here, before I met my wife. And yet I was still frustrated about my lack of opportunity for ministry and lack of recognition and all. As a man. Ignored. Presumably the right gender too! But it was not about me. I'm not convinced that it is chiefly about power either. Particularly in the U. S. where there are so many options available. You want power and you feel you aren't getting it? Over there is a church more congenial to your beliefs and possibly willing to be seduced by one's quest for power too.

Even though I have plenty of opportunity, responsibility, and ministry where I am now. And it would appear that I'm failing at some of it. But it isn't about me. The me who questions and resents the leadership of my Communion, Province, and Diocese. But it isn't about me. It isn't about maybe things would be better if a lot of guys like me were in control, or gals somewhat like me were in control too. It's about Him. His Providence, His will, and His Church. I can't answer fully why much of what I'm doing is not successful, or why TEc is going to the dogs with many of us suing each other and others doing whatever the Hell they want and calling it church. I learned long ago (and didn't want to hear it, let alone learn it) that my faith defines my feminism, my conservatism, my gender consciousness, my sexual expression and freedom. Not the other way around. IOW, my conservatism, for example is modified by and defined by my faith. I'm not a high church Protestant because I'm conservative. My politics doesn't define my faith either. I trust that the Pope feels the same way about his ministry and responsiblility. I trust that even though I don't consider him the leader that his followers do. And I trust that all who disagree with me here and elsewhere at A&F on substantive issues won't be satisfied with this. I can only look to God in confusion as to why others don't see it this way.

All that to say that it isn't about any of us. And it definitely isn't about power grabs either. If it comes down to that, I think we can destroy ourselves and our opportunity to worship and fellowship with Him, which is really what our faith and the Church Universal is about despite our differences. What I want will inevitably get in the way of what He wants to give me.

Edited by Rich Kennedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When obedience to god translates to obedience to all-male hierarchies on issues that matter to women, all-celibate hierarchies on matters pertaining to sex, etc--surely you can't be surprised when many of us raise critical questions about to what degree people are attempting to preserve existing power relations rather than serve the kingdom.

Yet, so many of us are surprised when someone raises a critical question about to what degree people are attempting to preserve existing forms of desire rather than serve the kingdom. This is the pastoral nut a few layers of the onion beneath the more gendered questions.

Zing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually no one is surprised; we've heard it all before about how selfish we are for daring to imagine a God that would affirm the holiness of our relationships, or imagine our status as second-class citizens as less than God-ordained. Sorry to be flippant, but this is pretty boring--and yes it does recall all the same arguments that were made about feminist Christians, anti-racist Christians, etc. The onion actually peels the other direction.

Edited by Rich Kennedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The onion actually peels the other direction.

I think Mike's point was that the onion peels both ways, and neither side has a corner on the narrative of vested interests. For either side to attempt to claim the high ground along this particular axis seems naive.

I won't argue with the theological point that ultimately, it's about God, it's not about us.

Good.

But following God means challenging oppressive structures.

True, but not every challenge to every structure claimed to be oppressive is the result of following God. Marriage itself and the commitments thereof are charged as oppressive structures by some.

And Valerie Saiving was right: subjectivity matters. It's naive to imagine otherwise.

See point #1 above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christopher, it's not because I don't understand the assertions regarding "Christ was male," etc. - I've been aware of them for nearly 40 years. I even spent 2 years living in a small convent (though as a guest, not as a nun!) back in the 1970s. (Although i was then - and remain - Protestant.)

Basically, I think the assertions are wrong.

There are Catholics who do as well - faithful ones.

There is a plurality of opinion and belief in the church.

It would be to everyone's benefit if there would be a greater plurality - and collegiality - in the way the church's leadership works, imo.

This is nobody's opinion but mine, although I think it would be easy enough to find Catholics who agree. (And who are still in the church.)

I personally think that one of the great strengths of the Catholic tradition is the willingness to accept a lot of different approaches to faith under the same umbrella.

But it is, I think, a real shame that the leadership of the church has often been very closed to that. Again, research in church history will tell the tale far more eloquently than I ever could. (I was trained as an art historian; that required that I learn a great deal about church history from the Middle Ages through the 19th c. Check the bios. of the popes - even in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries - and you'll encounter a great deal of jockeying for temporal power, political machinations, corruption on every level, nepotism, kingmaking, violent exercise of temporal power, and spiritual and moral bankruptcy. the office is only as good - imo - as the character of the men who hold it, and some of them have been downright evil people.) All that does not mean that I'm saying that the Roman Catholic church is evil, or anything like it. But more than a few popes - and papal courts - seem to have styled themselves to be more like those of the less pleasant Roman emperors than to be servants. (The Papal States alone, plus other regions where Rome had vassals in political power, should be proof of that - the "princes of the church" were more princes than they were pastors, for a great deal of time past... which is wrong, but it's what happened, and I won't whitewash it.)

I believe it's a very far cry from Jesus' "least of all and servant of all" take on true leadership.

fwiw.

I don't wish to shock you; even reading various histories regarding Thomas à Becket will show that the record on both sides - the English crown (also the French) and the church - is scarcely unblemished. (Though who said what about whom has a great deal to do with whether they were English or French; that's just for starters...)

Again, it wasn't my intention to get into a separate thread on the Catholic church or on church history.

My apologies to all.

e2c,

I understand your view, and at one time, I probably would have shared it myself. The closer that I move to non-Protestant Christianity though, it becomes more difficult for me to see how one can truly be a "faithful Catholic" if one staunchly, consistently holds to an opposing view (refusing to even consider that the Church might be right) on a theological matter on which the Church has already authoritatively spoken.

The official Catholic Catechism states that the ordination of women is "not possible." Period (regardless of what individual Catholics think about it). Now, if one openly opposes, not simply that statement, but even the morality of the statement, can one really be a "faithful Catholic"?

Try to see this "through Catholic eyes," so to speak. The Church teaches that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the apostolic successor of Pete, divinely appointed to speak and teach authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. If one disagrees, theologically, with part of the Catechism which the Pope approved, and one speaks, and even teaches, openly, about that disagreement (as many do in the Church), shouldn't one simply become a Protestant of some sort? Hasn't one already basically done so, although not in a formal sense?

It's not a matter of "Agree with us on all things, or we'll excommunicate you." Anyone who is a practicing Catholic knows that not to be the case. (Some Catholics wish that the Church were a little more quick to excommunicate open dissidents!) It's a matter of consistency, if one believes the Pope and and the Church to be what they claim themselves to be.

Edited by Christopher Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The onion actually peels the other direction.

I think Mike's point was that the onion peels both ways, and neither side has a corner on the narrative of vested interests. For either side to attempt to claim the high ground along this particular axis seems naive.

That's right. It is an onion after all. I have really been stunned lately by how the book of James speaks of the proper expression of desire and the act of participating redemptively in vulnerable or oppressed populations as essential components of one another. This is James' sine qua non for Christianity. It is a healthy reminder that this question can't be reduced to the sociological categories liberation theology has always been so addicted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This issue once again flares up inside the Evangelical ghetto, and boy is it deliciously funny.

The Miami New Times article that broke the story.

Isn't this the second Anti-Gay Czar in Dobson's cabinet to be caught in a compromising, homosexual situation?

Edited by Greg P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By now this news is all over creation, butmore details have now emerged about one of the nation's most vocal, anti-gay Evangelicals.

I only wish I was at liberty to discuss how this man's actions have directly affected the lives of people I am close with. Sigh. This scandal is funny, tragic and angering at the same time. And yes, Mr. Dobson and sheltered religious friends everywhere, a handlebar mustache is a universal sign of male homosexuality.

The new gay stereotype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting comments here from a guy who claims to have been one of Rekers' hires back in 1992; among other things, the guy in question is a self-described friend of Ted Haggard's who believes that Haggard is a faithful husband etc., but whereas he does come to Haggard's defense, he does not come to Rekers'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah,... whereas Ted Haggard was a fairly innocuous, seeker-sensitive preacher, Rekers was stridently pro-active in his anti-gay mission making his hypocrisy all the more slap-worthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...