In November, 2008, the voters of California passed Proposition 8. There were 7,001,084 of the people that democracy tells us are the ones with the power to determine the direction of our government, who voted Proposition 8 into law. Yesterday, one federal judge–not elected by the people–decided with a stroke of his pen that the will of the people didn’t matter; the law was going to be what he thought it ought to be.

There is much that could be said about the issue in question; the legality of same-sex marriage. But for the moment I invite us all to forget that completely, because there’s an even bigger issue at stake. The most fundamental concept of United States government is the rule of the people, and by demonstrating that that’s not true, Judge Vaughn has shown us that American democracy is dead. One federal judge has the ability to wield the power of an absolute dictator to override the desires of the people.

The U.S. is a republic; a coalition of states voluntarily joining together. But we have just seen a dramatic indication that the states no longer have the right to set their own standards. This is an issue of sufficient importance, that I would not be surprised–in fact I would be delighted–if state governments began discussing seceding from the republic. Surely there are lines that the federal government cannot be allowed to cross.

It is traditional to fly the U.S. flag at half staff to mourn national losses. I hope people everywhere will fly their flags at half staff for the next few days, because we should be mourning a great death; the death of the days when the will of the people mattered.

Good news, Ted: a church based on denial should be a rousing success in our society.

In an interview with the Denver Post yesterday, Haggard said, “St. James is a church for sinners – for people who have hit rock bottom and people who want to help people who have hit rock bottom. Everybody is welcome: Democrats, Republican, Independents, gays, straights, tall, short, addicts and recovering addicts." Those all sound like good things, so why are many unhappy?

First, questions have been raised about his recovery from the drug and sex issues that caused his downfall in 2006. At the time, a team of counselors came together to help him through recovery and restoration. Fourteen months later, Haggard ended his relationship with the team against their wishes. At the time, H.B. London, vice president of pastoral ministries for Colorado Springs’ Focus on the Family and a member of the oversight team, said that the process of restoration was incomplete. The Christian Post reported that London and the others wished Haggard would have followed their counsel rather than doing what he was doing.

Second, rather than continue with an accountability program Haggard and his wife began making paid public appearances–raising the question of whether he was more concerned about fame and fortune than spiritual recovery. He said all the right things during those appearances, but without the support of an accountability group who knew what was really happening in his life. Quotes like, "People love a good comeback story" run the risk of making it sound more like the appeal of a showman than a humbled person. (Anybody remember Steve Martin in Leap of Faith when the local sheriff revealed his crimes?)

Finally, there is the air of deception created by multiple denials that he was starting a new church–one as recent as three weeks ago. That isn’t the climate of transparency and sincerity that Haggard needs to reclaim an image of spiritual integrity.

We all need second chances. It would be truly fantastic and a testament to God’s healing power to see Ted Haggard completely repentant, changed, and restored. But Haggard’s actions are making it more difficult to accept that that’s where he’s at.

Publicity photo from tedhaggard.com

It’s official—Ted Haggard is once again the head of a church. Three and a half years after the sex and drug scandal that caused his resignation from Colorado Springs’ New Life Church in November 2006, Haggard has incorporated a church named St. James in the barn on Old Ranch Road where he began hosting overflowing “prayer meetings” last November. At that time, Haggard told the Associated Press that the meetings were not the beginning of a new church.

Haggard and his wife Gayle have been conducting paid speaking events around the country for more than a year, buoyed by the sale of Gayle’s book and Ted’s DVD regarding the experience. Haggard said that he had incorporated the church “to keep the accounting in order” for those engagements. But there’s a significant difference in the kind of paperwork that one files for a church and that for a paid speaking organization, so Haggard’s true intentions must differ.

The real question in all of this is how we, as Christians, should handle the questions of forgiveness, making amends, and eligibility for spiritual leadership.

Christianity’s detractors often point to hypocrisy as their reason for shunning the church. They have a good point; most of us could do a far better job at living the life Christ taught. But the reality is that none of us is perfect, and to expect us to never do anything that is contrary to Christian teaching is unreasonable. I have failed to live a sin-free life, and so have you.

But in 1 Timothy 3, the Bible makes it clear that spiritual leaders are held to a higher standard. So the question is, if a spiritual leader fails what are the rules governing his ability to be a spiritual leader again?

Jud Wilhite and Mike Foster, creators of People of the Second Chance, say the process varies based on the individual and situation but there are clearly defined steps. WIlhite is a contributor to Preaching Unleashed and pastor of Central Christian Church in Las Vegas–where he has lots of opportunities to see people in need of second chances. He says, “We’ve all been on the receiving end of judgment rather than grace. The culture will judge us by how we treat each other.”

The first step in their process is owning the failure. Wilhite says, “We live in an age where it’s very convenient to blame others, to make excuses. But to grow, we have to own our own contribution to failures. You cannot give a second chance to someone who doesn’t own his failures. People weren’t nearly as upset with Tiger Woods about the affair as they were his refusal to own up to it.” And to really do that, they say that we need to go past the parts that have become public and we’re forced to confront, and also address the ticking time bomb underneath. That aspect of our failure that nobody knows about yet has to be admitted to and dealt with as well.

The second step in their process is amending the situation. Obviously this will take different forms based on the situation, but it is a critical step in the process—and it often takes longer than you think. But what kinds of things must it include, and are people ever eligible for spiritual leadership again? Wilhite thinks so. “We only hire broken people, because we live in a broken world. If I’ve got a broken person that has owned it and amended it, he or she will be more humble and more loving. Because every week people walk through your doors that got high or drunk before coming in, just to get up the courage to come. Every week people walk in with marks on their arms where they’ve cut themselves. They don’t need a church staff that acts like they have it all together.”

“Historically, we have handled the situation simply: ‘You’re fired.’ ” Wilhite says. “I’m tired of seeing ex-pastors selling cars. The church has their boilerplate of telling people they have to go to counseling, be out of service for six months, read Gordon MacDonald books, attend church every week… but I advocate personal faith-based restoration. In some cases, we’re removing people from the only thing that provides them stability and sanity! I think we need to get them back into service more quickly. Maybe in a different position, lesser role, something like that, but let’s work with them for restoration. Even if they can never serve at your church again, work with them to get them through restoration to the point that you can give them a sincere recommendation to another church.”

Why are Christians so quick to kick our own when they’re down? “I think we feel like it’s our responsibility to pour salt into someone’s wounds,” Wilhite says. “Trust me, they get it. They already know they blew it. So our responsibility is to stand beside them, to rebuild them. Making amends is not about six months or eighteen months. Our job is to walk beside them for the rest of their journey.”

There will be many on both sides of this issue; those who say Haggard should not be leading a church again so soon—or perhaps ever, and those who loved his teaching and think it’s about time. Spiritual leaders are rightly held to a higher standard, but they are still human and will disappoint us. What do you think is the appropriate stance toward restoration of those who have failed?

“Sunday’s Coming” Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

(If the video isn’t showing up above, go to http://www.equippingministryblog.com/2010/05/were-all-uniquely-the-same/)

I think the point is more about falling into ruts than any style of worship, and a church of any style and age can get monotonous. How can we keep things fresh so that people are truly moved to God’s throne, without having to be gimmicky?

At the Catalyst West church leadership conference last week, Dan Kimball (author of The Emerging Church and They Love Jesus But Not The Church) told me, “If we hold the church’s historical view of sexuality, it doesn’t mean we are fundamentalists or hateful.” Kimball is right that holding the church’s historical view doesn’t have to mean a hateful stance toward the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender (GLBT) community. He’s even right that holding the view that alternate sexual practices are a sin shouldn’t mean a hateful stance. After all, there’s no biblical example of Jesus displaying hatred toward those in any sinful practice. However, the truth is that most in the GLBT community have been the recipients of hateful actions or words from some who claim to be Christian. Is it surprising, then, that they aren’t particularly inclined to listen to our message?

There are wide extremes in Christian viewpoints on the subject. For example, Denver’s Highlands Church openly proclaims their acceptance of those who aren’t just attracted to same-sex partners but are actively in same-sex relationships. Their pastor Mark Tidd was quoted by MSNBC as saying, “Gay people can embrace their sexual orientation as God-given and seek fulfillment in committed same-sex relationships.” There are other churches in our area where… well, just imagine how your church would react if two men walked into your service holding hands.

Are gays right in pointing out hypocrisy?

(Courtesy Dan Kimball)

I’ve heard many say, “We don’t really care if you’re gay or not. We didn’t ask. Stop throwing it in our faces.” The GLBT community would ask, “Then why is it okay for you? Why should we have to see a man and woman holding hands?”

Andrew Marin, author of Love is an Orientation, says there are significant misunderstandings on both sides. In an interview for Smart Ministry, he told me, “The church believes that if they can just demonstrate enough people that have gotten out of the same-sex lifestyle, the GLBT community will say, ‘Oh, we get it, it doesn’t have to be that way. You were right.’ That isn’t going to happen. Likewise, the gay community believes if enough scientists show genetic proof that it’s how people are born, not a choice they make, the church is going to say, ‘Oh, we get it, it’s how God made you so it’s okay. You were right.’ That isn’t going to happen either.”

One thing is clear: this issue isn’t going away. Last week Bill Ward announced that his club Below in LoDo is becoming an openly gay bar–a first for LoDo. Andy Stanley, pastor of Northpointe Church in Atlanta, told me he believes determining how we’re going to respond to sexuality issues will be the single biggest challenge the church faces over the next five years.

Kimball is right that holding the church’s historical view of sexuality doesn’t have to mean we are hateful. Nor does it mean we change our opinion on alternative sexualities, or stop clearly teaching what we believe the Bible says. However Jesus reminds us in Matthew 7:3-5 that we are hypocrites if we are not focusing as much time and attention on fixing the things that are wrong in our own lives.

A 2010 Barna study indicated that millions of Americans are not going to church because they have been hurt by the church or Christians. These are people who are not growing any closer to Jesus or the life he wants for them because we so often haven’t communicated his truth in a helpful, loving way. Jesus never shied away from speaking the truth. But he also loves you and me despite things in our lives that he hopes will change over time. Would it be so wrong to follow his example?

Like many others, the Associated Press was fooled by the organization’s deliberately misleading name and referred to them as a “religious watchdog group.” In fact, the group’s purpose is the abolishment of any religious practice–not just by the military itself, but by anyone in military service! The motto on their site proclaims, “When one proudly dons a U.S. military uniform, there is only one religious symbol: the American flag. There is only one religious scripture: the American Constitution. Finally, there is only one religious faith: American patriotism.”

Their belief is that if you’re a scared soldier in a foxhole, you should pray to America. Looking for words of support and comfort? Read the Constitution.

It’s a free country and they’re entitled to their opinions, but what’s disturbing is that government officials are actually listening to this group. Whether true or not, they take credit on their website for being the impetus for the cancellation of Franklin Graham’s invitation to the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer event. And while they’re outspoken against anything Christian, they also speak out in favor of Muslim freedom of expression. Confusing, isn’t it?

Lt. Col. Steve Wollman said that Fort Carson’s commanders would review the request, but the emblem had been in use since 1969 and was approved by the Army Institute of Heraldry. Mikey Weinstein, president of the foundation (which claims to be about religious freedom), said, “This continues to add more fodder to the argument that we are Crusaders. It’s exactly what fundamentalist Muslims want.” Yet if you go to their website (please don’t) you see articles complaining about discrimination against Muslims in the military.

So this foundation, which has the affrontery to bill itself as “The Constitutional Conscience of the United States Military,” wants the removal of all things Christian, the silencing of people who don’t support Islam, the abolition of all Christian practice in the military, and the support of Muslim practice in the military. And they do all this because they believe being less Christian and more Muslim is best for America.

What do you think?

The U.S. Supreme Court

(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak. File)

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments today on the case between the University of California’s Hastings Law School and the Christian Legal Society (CLS). The CLS has been barred from recognition by the law school because all recognized groups may not exclude people due to religious belief, sexual orientation and other reasons. The society claims that this is a violation of their constitutional freedoms of speech, religion and association. They also argue that groups shouldn’t be forced to allow people who don’t share their beliefs to become leaders.

The meetings of the CLS are open to everyone, but people must sign a statement of faith before they can become voting members or run for office. Part of that agreement states that “Christians should not engage in sexual conduct outside of a marriage between a man and a woman”

The CLS has taken up this same battle at other schools, but the differing results make it difficult for either side to declare a clear legal precedent. The Supreme Court’s ruling will therefore have a significant impact on several other cases.

It even has a bearing on President Obama’s recommendation for a new Supreme Court Justice, since presumed candidate Diane Wood ruled on a case nearly identical to this one in 2006 concerning the Southern Illinois University law school. She wrote a dissenting opinion in favor of the law school, and if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the CLS in this case it will likely be a key point of argument against her acceptance as a Supreme Court Justice.

It would seem there are a few simple questions that would clarify this case. If this was the Muslim Legal Society, would anyone argue that they must allow Christians to be president before the club can be recognized? If this was the Gay/Lesbian Legal Society, would anyone argue that they must allow avowed heterosexuals to be president? If this was the African-American Legal Society, would anyone argue that they must allow caucasians to be president?

{Adapted from my article as Denver Christianity Examiner}

Dr. George Wood, the general superintendent of the Assemblies of God, signed the covenant at the National Association of Evangelicals meeting, and has now decided he doesn’t want to be associated with the others who have signed the agreement. Juleen Turnage, spokeswoman for the Assemblies of God, said “The problem is the tent that has grown so large on the signatures of this that are including people who are supportive of gay marriage and abortion rights.”

There is nothing in the covenant that says signatories will agree with each other on all points, nor that they will stop speaking out on their own beliefs. Its purpose is simply to stop the name-calling and infighting that divides the Christian church and gives nonChristians good reason to laugh at us. It’s content can be summarized as, “We won’t agree on everything, but we will handle our disagreements with integrity and respect for the cause of Christ.”

In a shocking move, Dr. Wood has decided that he cannot commit to being civil to those whose view on gay marriage and abortion rights differ from his own. Wood is quoted as saying, “I do not want my name or the Assemblies of God to be associated with persons who claim to be in the Body of Christ yet reject the moral teachings of Scripture,”

The covenant says nothing about agreeing with them, or accepting their viewpoint. It simply says that the disagreement will be handled in a civil way—and he cannot agree to that. Quoting from the covenant’s introduction, “Too often we have reflected the political divisions of our culture rather than the unity we have in the body of Christ.” Sadly, they’re right.

Nine members of this group were arrested and charged with “seditious conspiracy,” or plotting to wage war against the United States, as well as attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, teaching the use of explosives and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence. The group appears to be organized to fight the Antichrist, which they’ve determined to be all authority figures in the U.S. The Federal attorneys filed a 17-page document laying out their case against the Hutaree, which was persuasive enough that the federal magistrate agreed that they should be held without bail.

The filing alleges that the group planned to bring authority down by eliminating police forces to spread anarchy. The document claims they had plans that are truly chilling. One plan is that they would place a phony 911 call, kill police officers who responded, and then set off a bomb at the funeral to kill all the police who were in attendance. The filing said members also talked about “torching the homes of police officers and then shooting them and their families as they fled their burning homes.” The group was planning two training exercises in April and leader David Stone is quoted as saying that if any outsiders came upon these exercises they were to be killed. The group has found defense attorneys shameless enough to argue that this is simply constitutionally protected free speech.

I’ve yet to see a news story that doesn’t refer to these lunatics as Christian. Stop it.

Am I saying these people aren’t Christians? I’ll leave that up to God to decide. But I am definitely saying that there is nothing in their attitudes or actions that are even remotely related to the teaching of Christ, and it’s unfair and deliberately misleading to continue labeling them in a way that smears Jesus by association.

Jesus lived in a time and place in which his people, the Jews, were under occupation by the Romans. They were miserable and oppressed, and wanted Jesus to overthrow the Romans and rescue them. He refused, focusing his attention on individual souls, attitudes, and lives.

Enough blood has been shed over torture and abuse of the Bible’s teachings. The Muslims still hate us for the horrible killings in the Crusades (which falsely claimed Christianity as their authority), and it’s hard to blame them. I live in what was the wild West. It’s hard to imagine a time when a gun control law could pass in Colorado. That’s fine, but make sure you’re putting those guns to appropriate purposes or don’t claim the name of Christ.