Jesus Fucking Christ: evangelical bigwig opposed gay marriage "because it takes the dirt and danger out of clandestine sex with rent-a-men"

Oh yeah, and that you should hire "heterosexual male assistants" to defend your priestly body from temptations of the world.

and all this is best described by Jon Swift, in an essay entitled "Ted Haggard Shows the Virtue of Hypocrisy"

He sat in on a conference call w/ Bush and other Evangelical leaders every Monday. He was in no way Bush's "top spiritual advisor," and despite the calls and meeting him in person, hardly influential at all in the Whilte House's policy making. He was more or less used in turning out the Evangelical vote. Its not like he was hooking Cheney up with meth and giving Bush BJ's.

I saw Jesus Camp this weekend and CAN NOT BELIEVE it isn't getting name-checked in every story about Haggard seing as though he's seen preaching a sermon on homosexuality in it.

not on a weekly basis, at least

That Driscoll entry gets pretty nuts in places, but for a man of the cloth to impose ragulations on himself such as "dont be alone with women" isn't any different from rules about High School teachers not giving rides home to students.

Not hysteria so much as being smart about the position you're in, and the potential for something fucked up to go down.

oh i know & understand that bit. It's the same doctrine that Billy Graham follows. There's just something about the guy specifying "male heterosexual assistants" that makes him sound like he need to be tailed by two strong, young bucks at all times.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. High school teachers aren't supposed to give rides home to students mostly because they have no good reason to fraternize with students outside of their work. (Also because the students are minors over whom teachers have extensive power.) For a man of the cloth to impose regulations on himself such as "don't be alone with women" would be more like ... a male teacher who tutors boys after school, but refuses to meet with a girl during study hall to discuss her grade.

agreed.

fwiw, my father has been a (much more moderate) Evangelical minister for 25 years and has never been alone with a woman who wasn't his secretary or someone in his family. I've never asked him, but I think he imposed that after the Swaggert thing.

(Please spare me the jokes about if my mom puts out.)

Nabisco, i suppose "alone" would be defined as "no one else is present, on the premesis, or witnessing our engaging with eachother." My father meets in private with female members of his congregation to discuss things, but someone always knows about it and sees the visitor come and go. Its not OMG MUST CONTROLL PENIS so much as realizing that you're somewhat vulnerable in a position like that.

(just a general comment, not following any discussion here)

P.S. You know what else helps with avoiding that kind of impropriety is if women can't leave the house at all unless accompanied by a male relative! Also if they wear veils and loose-fitting robes you won't be tempted by noticing that they look better than your old fat wife, who's really "let herself go."

- Betty Bowers, "America's Best Christian."

http://www.bettybowers.com/nl_nov2006.html

(The problem with things like "this" and Foley, though, is that it just cements the link in people's mind between homosexuality and secret sordid activity like drug use, soliciting minors, and prostitution; it doesn't seem to register that suppression of homosexuality might be a major part of how people end up in those situations.)

NEW LIFE NOW
1. A New Page in the New Life Story
2. Wonderland
3. Thou Shalt Laugh Comedy Night

yeah, that's the bit that other folks have talked about, and i might have even mentioned. That the hilariosly negative view these folks have about gay people, w/ all the pathological stereotypes & whatnot, is that the only gay people they ever come in contact with are those w/in their own midst who have had to repress so much for so long. Eventually they crack, and thus are evidence in some people's minds that gayes = teh evil.

Agreed.

i think the fact that bush had regular talks with a rabid YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST is a lot more disturbing than any of this shit

Agreed!

Yeah, Grady, but like you say, that's an issue of deniability and ass-covering -- protecting yourself against accusation and slander -- rather than an issue of avoiding temptation.

You're half right. The other half is the fact that there are people who are drawn to those in a leadership position, be it a priest, minister, CEO, president, whatevs. People who actually wish to engage in some kind of behavior innapropriate of someone in that kind of role, NOT just make false accuations that are impossible to disprove. And when you're in that position, it can catch you off guard and you can fuck up. Again, we agree on Driscoll going way too far in this direction and placing blame on spouses who "let themselves go." My initial point was just that being aware of the potential for both slander AND tempation (not the kind of OMG I HOPE THAT HOT LADY IN THE 2nd PEW STOPS IN TODAY temptation, more the kind that can catch someone off-guard) is very real. I was just getting a little bothered that the sentiment was "hahaha xians r afraid sexx lolz."

If Haggard's unblinking congregation could sit and listen to such a liturgical Liberace week after week and not realize they were in the presence of someone who makes Barry Manilow in a full-length mink look butch, they really need to recalibrate their ability to detect prescription-strength doses of flamboyance.

OTM x100,000,000,000. In Jesus Camp he speaks of a life in Christ being FABULOUS. I swear I'm not making that up.

it just cements the link in people's mind between homosexuality and secret sordid activity

This is why i was unrealistically hoping Haggard could be a key person/symbol in changing the shape of homosexuality and religion in this country. Sadly, it will only reinforce cuurent views.

Well, the really unfortunate thing is that this country is full of well-adjusted gay couples who are Christians, and yet the evangelicals' rhetoric ensures that they'll never come into contact with them. (This would seem to be by design, actually: I assume the fear is that sharing anything with gay people -- trying to acknowledge common values at all -- will lead to GOD FORBID noticing that they tend to be decent human beings like anyone else.) The only way you can get that kind of example you're talking about would be ... well, the fairly unrealistic scenario of an unmarried clergyman being discovered as having a secret committed gay partner and raising adopted children in blissful good-citizen happiness?

ding ding ding.

Perhaps.

My fantasy scenerio was more along the lines of Haggard getting a divorce, dropping out of the spotlight for a number of years and then re-emerging as a homosexusal religious leader 100x more powerful than Vermont bishop guy. He cerntainly has a knack for leadership, and one would like to think that if he can build a congregation of 14,000 and have conference calls with the president while preaching homophobia that he can do the same as an openly gay man. One would like to think that the 14,000 member congregation, the 30mil association, all the political connections had less to do with his anti-gay anti-abortion stance than who he is as a communicator. The medium is the message, bro.

I know I'm sounding like I think Haggard is the best thing evah minus the pro-family rhetoric.

It's all just wishful thinking.

or at the very LEAST, get to know them, spend time with them, and perhaps gain some understanding as to where they're coming from.

True.

But Old Testament the story of Soddom and Gommorah is terribly misinterprited as a story about God hating teh ghey when its really a story about God punishing bloodthirsty rapists (hetero or homo).

but I agree in general abt the narrow interpretation of the story as being specifically homosexuality. Tho I believe there are several other OT passages commonly cited as "proof" that god hates fags. I forget where, Leviticus...? so many OT "laws"...

Leviticus 18:22 "You [masculine] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."

Now Jesus, for his part, did explicitly deny the necessity to follow all the rules laid down in the OT, so you can ostensibly combine that rejection of Jewish moral traditions with his "hey I love everybody" attitude and extrapolate from there that he woulda been cool with Rip Taylor or whoever, but I think we should all be able to agree that that's stretching it quite a bit.

It should also be noted that there is a considerably large movment within Evangelical churches to admit that the ways in which the church has dealt with honosexuals hasn't been Christ-Like©. This movment seeks some kind of reparations with the Gay community and encourages openly homosexual families into thier churches in order to treat them as Jesus would have and perhaps gain understanding from them... but still defines homosexuality as a sin only redeemable through a life in Christ.

It's a nice sentiment, but if you're only going half way, just fucking forget about it.

Shakey OTM re: Chick tract on Soddom and Gommorah.

Re: other OT passages, yes there's at least one in Leviticus. There's a hilarious "Open Letter to Dr. Laura" floating around the net where someone goes "gee, thanks for setting me straight on Leviticus' commandments regarding homosexuality. Can you set me straight on a few more?" ...and goes on to ask her stance on shearing sheep, disposal of moldy clothing, stoning of adulterers, and other things Leviticus goes into inane depth on. quite teh funny.

v. gene, where's yo' POWAH?!?!??

threads like these almost make me glad i done grown up episcopalian.