From the Colorado Springs Gazette:
“It is with great regret — and after much prayer and discussion with friends and family — that I have had to reconsider my involvement in the panel overseeing Ted’s restoration,” Dobson said in a written statement. “Emotionally and spiritually, I wanted to be of help — but the reality is I don’t have the time to devote to such a critical responsibility.”
I honestly suspect this is one of the better things that could have happened to Haggard right now.
The religious term “restoration” has been so misused by ex-gays and religious rightists that I think it’s worthwhile to provide some context for those unfamiliar with the term.
If you run a Google search for Restoration and John 21:15-19, you will discover that Wikipedia and various Protestant sources define restoration as a process by which Christians are methodically restored to good standing after a fall.
In the Bible, it was a humane and Christ-like way for the apostle Peter to make amends and be restored to full standing in the church, after he betrayed denied Jesus.
But in the modern-day culture wars, “restoration” has sometimes been used as a P.R. gimmick by activists and ministers hoping to whitewash their sins and exploit public forgetfulness without ever making amends.
I believe Haggard is absolutely sincere in seeking restoration — but I don’t believe Dobson is qualified to provide it, given his highly political and un-ministerial activities, motives, and demeanor.
In the Bible, it was a humane and Christ-like way for the apostle Peter to make amends and be restored to full standing in the church, after he betrayed Jesus.
Peter not only was restored to full standing in the church, he was one of its principal leaders (Catholics would say THE leader).
I cannot think of a case in modern times where “restoration” has taken place, not among evangelicals. Bakker, Swaggard, Paulk, and now Haggard. I’d say he’s not likely to ever be granted “restoration” status.
Not to blogwhore or anything, but I posted on this very topic in case anyone’s interested. https://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2006/11/05/129.
So… he’s too busy to help someone become ex-gay?
What exactly does he do with his time, then?
Yeah, off topic, but you’ve got me curious: what did Peter do?
Dobson is probably so blown away and depressed over the huge Democratic sweep (“seismic shift” as CNN put it) in the House and in the Senate that he probably is picking himself up off of the floor and trying to pick up the pieces. Under the circumstances he probably doesn’t have much time for anything else. I’m sure he doesn’t want to have a direct phone line to Nancy Pelosi now that President Bush has his hands tied with the Democratic victory. Poor J.D. doesn’t have a political power puppet to pull the strings on anymore doggonit.
I love this great Nation and I love the people of America. When all is said and done they eventually come around. They will eventually see reality for what it is, that gay folks are just as normal as anyone else and that we deserve the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. Arizona definitely showed forth their vote for equality and civil rights for GLBT people through voting down a ban on same sex marriage. This is awesome!!
I believe that James Dobson’s withdrawal from the “panel overseeing Ted’s restoration” is because he wants to distance himself from Ted Haggard and the whole scene there because he most likely knows that the “cure” will be just as inneffective as it has been in the past with Ted. I don’t think he wants to be associated with failure.
I hope that Ted Haggard eventually has an epiphany in that he rejects the need for approval from the Evangelical community and that he will not only come out of the closet but come out with God similar to the journey the Reverend Mel White took. It is charasmatic leaders like Ted Haggard that our community needs after he has healed from his dillusion and fear based view of his orientation.
Skemomo: Peter denied knowing Christ on the night before his death.
I wonder how differently the book of Acts would have read if the Apostles begged off from healing the sick because they didn’t have time?
This AP article indicates that the rehabilitation process could take three to five years.
“I see success approximately 50 percent of the time,” said H.B. London, vice president for church and clergy at Focus on the Family, the conservative Christian ministry in Colorado Springs. “Guys just wear out and they can no longer subject themselves to the process.”
I attended an evening worship service conducted by Dr Haggard at the New Life Church while in Colorado Springs for my son’s 2005 graduation from the US Air Force Academy.
I felt sorry for him for some of the prejudiced views about gays he expressed. I really feel sorry for him now. Rehabilitation? Visions of water-boarding come to mind, metaphorically speaking.
Wow, so they’re finally admitting that the success rate is “approximately 50 percent?” Seems a bit high.
And notice they blame the victim, er.. i mean ex-gay.
Same-ol’e Same ol’e.
Hehe. At first all I saw were the first two words of that title.
“Dobson withdraws”
I couldn’t help laughing – and commenting.
Wow, so they’re finally admitting that the success rate is “approximately 50 percent?” Seems a bit high.
I think he meant success rate for all who need restoration. That would include those who had an affair with the piano player, those who had problems remembering that the offering plate goes into the church fund not the pocket, and those who forget that pain pills are not for the pain of daily life.
I suspect the “snorting meth and doing the rentboy” success rate is probably much lower than 50%, but we don’t have much history to go by. I don’t think Lonnie Latham was using meth.
I’m not up on the lingo. Is this “restoration” they’re talking about specifically an ex-gay buzzword, or is it something else?
I don’t know what, maybe something about sitting in a sweat tent, flogging yourself with barbs until you have a vision of the Virgin Mary and you’re cleansed of your sins?
narc,
read the first few comments and I think you’ll understand
I want to apologize for that last comment of mine especially after reading the comments on the post three before this one where people talk about what is and is not appropriate for this site. My excuse/explanation is that I attend a stiflingly conservative Christian college where people routinely get suspended and expelled for having sex. The forbidden becomes joke fodder and I’ve probably gotten into some bad habits.
Reading a feature article the Haggard Scandal in San Francisco’s Bay Area Reporter, I gained some ‘outside-looking-in’ perspective about the conservative Christian perspective of which sin — drug use or gay sex — is worse than the other from gay Republican pundit Andrew Sullivan…
And, precisely how relatively significant gay sex is as a sin from Beliefnet pundit Amy Sullivan…
Andrew Sullivan and Amy Sullivan comments got me thinking about something I sort of knew instinctively, but never fully formed into a cogent concept: As a group, conservative Christians usually perceive gay sex as literally one of the worst sins one can engage in, and identifying as an unrepentant gay person is apparently identifying oneself as the embodiment of evil.That concept, to me, perhaps underlines why ex-gay organizations are so important to conservative Christians, and why any science that indicates same-sex sexual orientation most likely has a biological component has to be reputiated. If there is no mechanism to un-gay a person’s identity so that a gay person can truly repent and never desire gay sex again, then gay sex by a gay-identified person is functionally an unrepentable sin. This also may explain why gay people are perceived in some quarters as not to really exist. My guess is repentance or restoration of any sort will be particularly hard for former Pastor Haggard. He can’t identify as a former homosexual until he identifies first that he has been a closeted gay/homosexual man. No one is going to belive he’s not going to have same-sex relations any more unless he repents of having had a gay or homosexual identity that led him to have gay sex. And, how does he embrace that he has been a gay or homosexual man when 1) being gay is being evil, and 2) he had an evil gay identity while pastoring of a flock of thousands?
You make a lot of good points Autumn. This catch 22 is perhaps why so many of us with backgrounds in the Church and ministry barely escape with our faith intact. For many the most feasible path is to leave their faith and go on as a gay person with animosity toward the Church (for stealing their faith) and by extension, God. This is something which angers me about many ex-gay ministries, because in their arrogance they force people away from God, making it impossible for them to live their lives honestly and remain faithful. It’s really a crime.
I remember listening to a fellow seminary student one night at work. He was older than I and we both worked evenings at the same place. I don’t know how we got on the subject, but he commented that although he realized that sin is sin, he felt that homosexuality was a particularly heinus sin, and one that God would punish more so than the others. I’ve found this a common sentiment among evangelicals. They realize that the Bible does not support degrees of sin, but their own hatred and yes, homophobia, clouds their minds.
I think most regulars here realize that I am not one to bash the Church (and I’m not soliciting that now), but it really is awful what we (Christians) can do to people when we convince ourselves that it’s God’s will.
read the first few comments and I think you’ll understand
Nope, still don’t understand. The first comment says that it’s a process by which Christians who have sinned are returned to good standing in the church. So there’s an actual process for this, or it’s a sort of ceremony of forgiveness, like a baptism?
I’m not familiar with fundie-speak. Is this a commonly used term for someone who has sinned, or is this code for “we’re going to beat the queer demon out of him and make him an ex-gay”?
Narc,
In response to your first request, Timothy said:
Read the first few comments and I think you’ll understand.
If you read the second comment you will find both an explanation and a reference to more information. Also, please try to avoid terms like “fundie-speak” as they inject unnecessary contempt into the discussion. Some of our readers are from those very churches seeking answers or another point of view. Thanks.
Narc,
In response to your first request, Timothy said:
Read the first few comments and I think you’ll understand.
If you had read the second comment you would have found both an explanation and a reference to more information. Also, please try to avoid terms like “fundie-speak” as they inject unnecessary contempt into the discussion. Some of our readers are from those very churhes seeking answers or another point of view. Thanks.
Hi David et al,I don’t usually get my “brain blasts” confirmed so quickly, but today in Southern Voice I read the following regarding a recent Love Won Out conference session from the recent conference in Georgia:
I think the use of the term evil is pretty telling. I’m going to have to remember that gay, lesbian, bi, and trans identities are what makes gay people especially heinous in the conservative Christian minds — the G,L,B, or T identity behind any perceiced gay behavior.
I believe the “identity” issue — as it is abused by exgay activists — is a whitewash, an effort to pretend that sexual orientation does not materially exist apart from the mere label that one adopts for one’s predominant state of attraction. How exgay activists define (or avoid defining) “identity” is very different from how mainstream mental-health professionals handle the subject.
By cheapening the reality of sexual orientation, Focus and Exodus cheapen the process of Christian restoration.
Focus on the Family and Exodus create a bogeyman called the “gay activist movement” — they do not define it, specify particular activists, or distinguish between equality advocates and fringe groups that promote polygamy or hostility to religion. This sort of deception is comparable to some progressives’ efforts to equate all conservative Christians with Fred Phelps.
Having falsely attributed other groups’ ideologies and values to the missions of mainstream equality advocates, Exodus and Focus then proceed to demonize — call “evil” — anyone who demands equality under the law.
Same-sex-attracted persons who are honest about their orientation are deemed “evil,” “activist,” “militant,” polygamist, atheist, sinners, implicit criminals. Such persons are assumed to have all the rights of a convicted prisoner: none.
I think gay activism is deemed evil because:
— gay activism is diverse — gay activists agree on almost nothing, and that diversity of opinion scares those at Focus and Exodus who parrot whatever their leaders dictate;
— with the exception of a leftist fringe, gay activists affirm free speech, individual rights, individual choice, and freedom of religion, all of which are viewed by Focus on the Family as as morally permissive and a threat to Focus’ authoritarian misperception of God’s will.
In addition, Christian gay activists assert that:
— same-sex-attracted persons are loved by God along with the other outcasts whom Jesus defended throughout the gospels.
— same-sex attraction is not a sin, and same-sex behaviors are no more sinful than their opposite-sex counterpart behaviors.
In other words, gay Christians assert that it is a person’s action and intent that matter, not the orientation.
Focus on the Family and Exodus, on the other hand, assert that so-called “identity” is everything, even though “identity” is found nowhere in the Bible.
Exodus and Focus seem to believe in a double standard. They apply a very lenient moral standard to opposite-sex-attracted persons, and a graceless and unforgiving moral standard to same-sex-attracted persons.
I believe Exodus and Focus single out other people’s alleged wrongs for demonization because they are unrepentant of their own ethical failings, and they are determined to redefine Biblical morality in a manner that excuses their own financial, social, and interpersonal sins.
The 2006 elections suggest, however, that U.S. society and Christians in particular are beginning to rebel against this moral myopia that has corrupted the political religious right and polluted their “restoration” efforts.
“I see success approximately 50 percent of the time,” said H.B. London, vice president for church and clergy at Focus on the Family, the conservative Christian ministry in Colorado Springs. “Guys just wear out and they can no longer subject themselves to the process.”
Yeah, and when that 50% “wear out”, they are told that they did not have enough faith, will now go to Hell, did not pray enough, did not try hard enough, were just “flirting” with with their faith (according to Alan Chambers) or maybe weren’t even REAL Christians to begin with. It’s always the fault of the person who failed to become ex-gay, never the fault of the “process”.
Posted by: Mike Airhart at November 10, 2006 01:03 PM
Very interesting Mike, thanks for that perspectived.
Dobson’s right; he doesn’t have the time. It’s a fruitless quest that will take forever.
Dobson said in a written statement. “Emotionally and spiritually, I wanted to be of help — but the reality is I don’t have the time to devote to such a critical responsibility.”
It’s not that he doesn’t have the TIME. It’s that he doesn’t know HOW to make a gay person straight, and neither does anyone else.