I'm talking about Ted Haggard. Specifically, about he and his wife establishing a new church here in Colorado Springs. The two of them were interviewed on KVOR this morning, and it was an interview that made me sit up and pay attention.
I'll be the first to admit, the Bible states very clearly that no one but God Himself knows what's truly in another person's heart. And I'm in no way meaning to come off as more holy, more noble, or more deserving of God's grace than another person. But several things were said (and left unsaid) in the interview that have been nagging at me all day.
I don't question Mr. Haggard's desire to return to preaching or help hurting people, but I do seriously question his spiritual readiness to do so. Throughout the interview, he made frequent references to his "mistakes" and that he was "sorry" for what he had done, for hurting his family and nearly tearing his church apart. That's all fine and good, and he should be sorry for those things. Sorry BIG TIME. But he never acknowledged his actions as "sins" or "sinful", and never at any point did he mention that he had confessed those sins to God or repented of them. I don't remember either of those two words being uttered once in the entire interview, and that bothers me. There's a big difference between being sorry for your sins and repenting of them. I know - I catch myself blurring that line (or trying to) on a frequent basis.
James 3:1 says, "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." And that's exactly the problem - Ted Haggard was a teacher of God's Word. Since he is held to a higher standard than the general population, it's all the more important that he emphasize things like genuine repentance from sin when he messes up. I just didn't get that from him. I also found it ironic that he named his new church (meeting at his home) St. James Church, because of the book of James's "loving support" for people who have messed up. Um, excuse me, but has he READ the book of James lately?
Maybe this is the Presbyterian in me, but I'm concerned about his return to the pulpit in large part because said return seems to be largely determined by Ted Haggard and Ted Haggard alone. He's apparently "decided" that he's been in the doghouse long enough. Where is the oversight? Is he in any kind of accountability group or under the authority of men who can vouch for his spiritual renewal following such a tremendous fall? Shouldn't there be some hoops for him to jump through?
At one point, the interviewer (I think it was Jeff Crank) asked him basically point-blank about whether Haggard thinks the existence of evil played any role in Haggard succumbing to temptation. I wish I could remember the exact wording of the question, because it was brilliant. He was handing Haggard the opportunity to share the gospel on a silver platter, and Haggard didn't take advantage of it. No mention was made about Christ paying for our sins with his blood on the cross. In fact, he skirted the issue. I have to wonder what kind of pastor wouldn't use every opportunity he could (especially one like a radio interview that reaches tens of thousands of people) to spread the gospel - after all, that's his JOB.
Okay, I'd better stop while I have my foot inserted only halfway into my mouth. I'm trying really hard not to cross the line between a careful discerner of someone's actions and words, and a holier-than-thou busybody who thinks I've got someone I don't even know all figured out.
What's your opinion of Ted Haggard's return to the pulpit?
No comments:
Post a Comment