麻豆社

Yet another successful preacher heading for a crash. There must be some sort of training course they all attend in the US called something like "How to be a money grabbing religious hypocrite until you are found out" The course has thosamds of graduates and their careers all follow an enormous arc, followed by humiliation, sometimes bankruptcy or even jail and a tear stricken apology. Its so common that its not really news anymore.

In this case I would apply the word "dangerous" to the follower and not the guru. If these serious allegations are untrue the guru has nothing to fear.

I have, however, watched the video of the young man speak of Long: the father figure, the abuser. He spoke of how he showered and showered again in an attempt to remove the odour of Long's cologne from his body. I have also read the comments of concerned people on the "tight fitting muscle shirt" link. I hope these allegations are untrue. The young man in the video provided convincing testimony.

"Has the "prosperity theology" undergirding this movement turned the Christian gospel into a capitalist endeavour?"

In the beginning the church was a fellowship of men and women centering on the living Christ. Then the church moved to Greece where it became a philosophy. Then it moved to Rome where it became an institution. Next, it moved to Europe, where it became a culture. And, finally, it moved to America where it became an enterprise.--Richard Halverson

WHO CARES! It is just another scandal, another man, another cult, another religion, whatever, up for grabs, for scorn for laughs, for ridicule, for fun . Right or wrong does not matter to the press or to blogs like this, if it sells it's goooood, if it inspires responses its very good. Proof, ok lets wait, and it will die and be forgotten and next week we will talk about another gay bashing priest or monk on drugs, or famous respected scripture writer up on theft or racism charges. Why not switch back to some sexy catholic bishop scandal or hey lets go for broke with something even better. Dribble which many in this world will forget about in a heartbeat. Then when we are done we will get all serious for a bit and try to fight over some difficult biblical or theological teaching. Will lets move on please.

kierantherock

I consider it important that people have the opportunity to comment on stories like this in a level-headed way. The serious allegations made against Long have yet to come before the court, but this should not preclude sensible discussion on the matter. I remember a number of sex scandals surrounding other senior evangelical preachers - truly sickening. I do feel, however, that society benefits from having the hypocrisy of religious leaders of whatever stripe exposed.

OK, OK ,Newlach, yes people have the right to comment on anything I agree but really, come on! Where are we going with all this. There will be more and more and even more horrors, scandals and allegations until you and I run out of things to say about them let me promise you that. They are devised and dictated for our delight, horror and discussion by the lovely media right here. They probably could pick ten a week! When will we be fully satisfied from discussing religious hypocrisy from religious/cult/group/temple/clan, whatever leaders. NEVER, I know! or until the powers that be decide we must discuss something else. We all should be smart enough to understand in life these things can happen considering the billions of people alive in the globe. oh yes, I almost forgot these are allegations are not proven by court or law, yet we are plastering it's details readily, easily in a public domain. Thats what life's about. It is great to see good old fashioned love thy neighbour and bear false witness ... is fit and well. As Christians we must ask ourselves is this healthy? well everyone loves a sex scandal dont they! so I suppose happy days.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Oh dear, didn't realise I'd broken house rules!
Kieran, just to reiterate newlachs point- the story is important as it highlights someones clear hypocrisy if the allegations prove to be well founded. It serves as a lesson to those who manage to wiggle their way into positions of authority that they can't preach - do as I say, not do as I do.
It's also sad that the rules of society create these same situations over and over.That if true, he had to go to such extreme lengths to cover up a big part of who he is and crucify it in the process, by preaching alot of anti gay rhetoric.Even if one individual is preaching hate in such a way, it compounds an already difficult situation for those who might be more openly gay within that community.
As for the prurient nature of the media in general, I definitely don't think this falls into that catagory! It's in no way similar to let's say , John Terrys private life being splached all over the tabloids. That serves no purpose other than selling papers. This story potentially exposes an odious hypocrite

Here is a list of Eddie Long predecessors many of whom have made it their business to demonise homosexuals (amongst others)



And here is what they have achieved in the name of their god



Who needs to stone gays when you can drive them to suicide.

What interests me is the apparent surprise many people feel when people like Long are pulled up with these allegations. It is not surprising at all when you realise that many of the most vociferous and vitriolic homophobes are not really addressing what they see as a malaise in society, but addressing something in *themselves* which they see as an undesirable factor. A thorn in the flesh, one might say, and one which many psychologists feel was behind the Impostle Paul's rants on this topic. (Why would he use the terminology of "desires" and "lusts" if he "really wasn't into that kind of thing"?).

So the misguided leading the misguided has a long and ignoble history. No surprise.

What are the biggest problems, practical and theological that Protestant churches in Ireland and Britain face today? I would submit the following:,

Inability to retain or reach out to young, single people, especially men. Think about it
on a typical Sunday in a typical protestant church, how many 28-year-old single men are sitting in the pews? How might we draw them in? What are their felt needs?

Legalism. We can鈥檛 be a gospel-centered church with a do-this, don鈥檛-do-that mentality. Legalism, a focus on rules and moralistic preaching have always threatened the freedom of the gospel.

Biblicism. Too often we use selective proof-texts merely to maintain traditional opinions rather than really listening to the Spirit.

Muta Marriage
Shia Muslims have a solution to these problems that Protestant Christians should consider. Muta鈥� is a fixed-term marriage. The basic difference between Muta鈥� and Nikah (permanent marriage) is that in Nikah there is no time limit. In Muta marriage the man and woman arrange a fee beforehand, and then agree how long the marriage will last. This can be a matter of hours. Sexual relationships are allowed for the duration of the Muta Marriage, but not beyond.
Protestants could allow for such marriages 鈥� arranged and supervised by the Pastoral Staff. This would allow teens to experiment with their sexuality in a controlled environment without straying into fornication.
I can think of many objections. Perhaps the most damaging would be that this is a form of 鈥淭emple Prostitution鈥�, forbidden by Scripture.

First there are a handful of Bible verses that might seem to condemn the practice. But all the condemnation of temple prostitution involves pagan practices or worship of false gods. The objectionable thing is the idolatry, not the physical act itself. Sanctified, Muta鈥� Marriages would be a new thing. The Biblical writers never foresaw or contemplated sanctified, faithful, God-pleasing Muta鈥� Marriages in the churches and thus never wrote about it. Attempts to find a Biblical injunction against the practice therefore fall short.

Secondly, let鈥檚 not cherry-pick verses selectively. We don鈥檛 stone disobedient children to death. We don鈥檛 refrain from pork or sodomy merely because this or that verse says we should. We have to look at the whole Biblical witness in light of the freedom we have in Christ. For example, God ordered Hosea to marry a prostitute. Such Biblical precedent offers interpretive nuance to seemingly black-and-white prohibitions.

Thirdly, Jesus himself seemed to have a soft spot for prostitutes. Jesus showed radical inclusivity, breaking taboos by hanging out with prostitutes. So he would want us to celebrate and affirm their prostitution and give them a venue for making it their true vocation, a way of serving God by serving man鈥攕elflessly and with their whole being. Muta鈥� Marriages successfully replaced prostitution in some parts of Iran.





Fourthly, some primarily Lutheran nations in Scandinavia have already legalized prostitution. Perhaps it is time for the Church to (once again) follow the lead of secular morality. It is to the Churches shame that secular ethics are more tolerant and forgiving than Protestantism

Lastly, the idea that church prostitution would cause any harm has been put to rest by a host of studies. The opportunity for a woman to explore her sexuality in a controlled, churchly environment surely beats the back seat or back alley.
Think of the number of single males who would be saved from living a lie concerning their deepest emotional and psychological desires. The plain fact is that most of the unmarried men in the congregation are sexually attracted to women. Right now their cruel alternatives are to deny those urges and live a lie, carry out those urges in secretive and destructive ways, or leave the church because their desires are not welcomed and affirmed. But with Muta鈥� Marriages available, they could avoid dangerous, destructive behaviour, help the church raise money, use the gift of sexuality in a God-pleasing way, and sit in the pew focusing on spiritual things without all that pent up desire and frustration getting in the way.

So there are no valid objections to sanctified, faithful, God-pleasing Muta鈥� Marriages in the churches apart from tradition and conservative morality, which are surely trumped by love.
Furthermore, even if there are some controversial points, they do not touch the heart of the gospel. This plan does not eliminate John 3:16; it exposes more people to John 3:16 on Sunday (or, more likely, the Saturday night service). And if there is some Biblicist objection that such behavior could be considered immoral according to traditional, puritanical mores, well, everyone is a sinner! Salvation by grace through faith says nothing specifically about sexual behaviour! And Jesus never explicitly addressed the issueof Muta鈥� Marriage. Do we think we鈥檙e saved by proper sexual behavior? I think not. Nor are we saved by our interpretations of a few non-gospel related verses of the Bible.

The blog is suffering from an infestation of copy-pasters putting up lengthy pists. First we had that reborn longtime poster who changed identity again (but not his habit of abusing the complaint button to make valid criticisms disappear). And now deckard_aint_a_replicant very much shows himself a replicator. Post 11 liberally copy-pastes from .

Pity that the moderators of this blog are no good against that.

That is rather the point of being a "replicant", Peter Kalver! Well done on spotting the gag! I'm jolly impressed! I thought it would take folk much longer!

Still, there is a serious point that you have missed. I wonder if you (or some other chap or chap-ess)can spot that and address it?


(This "replication" has multiple uses, on many forums. Mine is an earnest hypothesis, for the sake of argument. Some have used it in irony, but I think this is a mistake.)

Post 12 Peter Klaver - The blog is suffering from an infestation of copy-pasters putting up lengthy pists. First we had that reborn longtime poster who changed identity again (but not his habit of abusing the complaint button to make valid criticisms disappear).

Mr Klaver I enjoy your posts and will be replying to some of your comments to posts in the near future. However, are your comments in post 12 referring to me complaining about you and another poster's disgraceful allegations, accusing me of being someone else? If your comments are referring to me, then why the animosity and are you prepared to now accept that I am a genuine poster, posting under the one name, and is someone who has only posted under the one name? I thought that people are always innocent before being proven guilty. Or is that only a theory?

Deckard: so it's not just to tell us that you are a crazy frustrated young man then ?? :-)

The merchants of the Prosperity Gospel, or 'Word of Faith' movement as they are more accurately called, are a dangerous manifestation of greed and power. Christianity is only a vehicle by which these charlatan鈥檚 deceive the masses. They appear on outlets such mega church events draped in luxury on religious television stations. Their brand of Christianity is not as we Christians would like it. (Rom 16:17-18) Sending $110 for a prayer handkerchief, or getting your mortgage or credit card debt cleared by sowing a seed (sending money), or the familiar 鈥榮peak it claim it鈥�. This sort of teaching reminds me of one of the reasons why Jesus cleared the money changers in the Temple. Over the years many well-known TV evangelists have been investigated by the American IRS. Eddie Long will not be the last to face public scrutiny or disgrace resulting from his public or private life. But remember this, secular life and lifestyles such as celebrity culture is just another side of the same coin of hypocrisy. For example, scientists are not immune from scandal as we have seen with the sharing of climate data. Scientists, a minority we hope, have been accused of publishing doggy data, hiding facts or disguising research to throw off competitors. They are not behind the door at making false claims to secure funding. Government ministers will spin their policies and bury controversial announcements on bad news days. Manifesto promises are quietly forgotten, expenses scandals ... and the list could go on. In fact, the difference between the religious and the secular world is that secularists more often get away with it. For example, former prime ministers can admit to lying to achieve objectives,celebs can go into re-hab, an re-incarnational event, and can be accepted back into society, appear on television, give concerts, as if nothing had ever happened. Cf. George Michael, Paris Hilton President Clinton 鈥�. The plumb line for today鈥檚 society seems to be - are they religious hypocrites? If yes - put the boot in. Now I would agree with that, if it is deserved. However, if it鈥檚 a footballer, a celeb, a chairman of a scientific body, or whatever 鈥� first beat them up, then help them run a story on 'my drug Hell', 'how I left my bad boy image', and so on. Seed the media with their charity work and get an interview with William! The importance of the Long story is not really Long himself, or even his accusers, who remember have yet to be vindicated, but after the reputation killing has taken place, just watch who will turn up on this blog to feed on the carcass. The importance of the Long story to this blog of course is the anti-gay factor. No one really minds what else he preaches, for if they did then then the rest of the prosperity gospel preachers would be daily on our news. The issue at stake for Christians is that in our utilitarian society, with no absolute morals, we will accept some as being worthy and feed the rest to the lions. By the rest we usually mean the Christians. Nothing really changes, does it?

PK (@ 12) -

"First we had that reborn longtime poster who changed identity again..."

Do you have proof of that, Peter?

Or are you not into this 'evidence and proof' thing, and prefer to rely on guesswork and supposition?

Funny, but I didn't think that was your way, given all you have written on other threads!


CTO (@ 14) -

"I thought that people are always innocent before being proven guilty. Or is that only a theory?"

Of course it's only a theory for those people who think they know everything!

:-)

LSV, I did post various bits of info that made me pretty sure. Others noted the same. But somebody (gosh, I wonder who) made those posts disappear. And no doubt would do so again if I reposted it.

I did also see your post on he other thread. I'm at work and only have time for a brief reply here. Since that lengthy post contained so many errors it will take a bit of time from me to list all of them.

Not sure if this is appropriate to this thread (I think so) or to the Religion and ethics in the news thread.



Although it seems current I think this is more of a reporting issue (ie it has become worthy of reporting rather than a more prevalent problem)

From a Northern Ireland point of view, we don't do very well either. There is not that much research but what there is makes uncomfortable reading.

There is a survey called Out on your Own from 2006 under the Rainbow Project, the document is a pdf so I cannot link to it but it comes up on google search OK if you are interested.

Eunice

No, I'm not at all young by the wildest stretches of the most devious imagination. I wish that I were or that I could picture myself so.


However, what I would like to know is what is wrong with my proposal from a Religious Viewpoint? Note that I say "Religious". I do not need a lesson in the woeful proof texting made so popular by loud mouthed Welsh and Scottish preachers.

Perhaps I imply too much pastoral control? I should replicate with more care.
Those in "short term" marriages could simply register their marriage with a suitable lay person.

These "mini-marriages" are a very sensible idea. Mini-marriages would be short term contracts to regulate and reform sexual activity, as a pre-cursor to marriage.
An exchange of gifts, rather than money, would be more appropriate in a materialist culture.

Peter Kalver

Two sentences are "replicated" from another source. I'll be jolly impressed if you can locate it! But once again, well done that fellow! (Or was it the luck of the Irish? I'd rather think not.)

Deckard: Marriage of any kind is not required to have a sexual relationship. It is the presence or absence of love in the relationship and during the sexual act that is relevant - not marriage.

Hmmm. I agree that this is possible Eunice, but it would undermine an authentic form of living, a way of being in the world. And authenticity is what religion can offer and the secular world cannot!

In fact, I doubt that love is ever truly "present". Except, perhaps, in tales once told, half-forgotten and despised.

Deckard: we are made from love and it is by re-connecting to that and choosing it that it becomes expressed and lived. So indeed many times Love is not present as we often live in separation to our true essence. I disagree that it would undermine authenticity - and would propose that living from one's essence of love would be the most authentic way of living as that is our true nature - everything else is in a way false and inauthentic! That's maybe a bit hard to swallow as we don't actually live like that - but we could! And in a way, as I see it that is part of the journey - to drop the false ways of being that serve none and become more authentic by expressing from our innermost of love, joy, harmony and stillness that serve all.

Eunice

That is a beautiful myth - the highest compliment I think we can pay an idea if we accept that truth is always deferred.

Perhaps it lacks a narrative, and a set of parables.

How long will I remain a "new" member of this blog?

Deckard: it's not a myth! :-)

Eunice - I return to the blog and in practically the first post I read (# 21) I find myself almost agreeing with you (again).

I say almost because I am not sure that the presence or absence of love, as it is commonly understood, is always relevant to the sexual act.

This liberal Christian sees absolutely nothing wrong with purely recreational sex where both (or indeed, in some cases, all) parties involved have engaged in the activity with the full, meaningful, informed knowledge and consent of all persons involved or affected.

Parrhasios: welcome back! I agree with you too....up to a point! Prior to just a few years ago I would have totally agreed with you. However, I now have understandings that have challenged my previous views on sex/love etc This comes back to understanding what is going on energetically and that was all new to me and I am still learning and will continue to do so for the rest of my life.

Those understandings would make a distinction between making-love and having sex where there is no love and would be based on what is going on energetically in each case. It's a bit of an emotive topic and I fully appreciate where you are coming from. It's not that I would say it is 'wrong' as there is no judgment and people can have sex or make love as they so choose - just that each has consequences when understood energetically. This is not a mystery though - cos people can feel the difference between making love and having sex and would say and know that the latter hasn't got a patch on the former! So ..make love !! :-)
(but only if you feel to of course!!)

There is nothing new under the sun. I am not in a place to judge this individual as that is properly for a court with witnesses, evidence, etc. However, false teachers have always been characterised by abusing their position to exploit others for their financial increase and sexual pleasure. Often they will appear nice or be hypocritical: preaching one thing and practising another. (The same has been the case for Kings, singers, poets, philosophers and others who have power over others.)

If a man professes to follow Christ and His Apostles, but is amassing wealth to himself, he is a hypocrite to start with, and should be treated with great suspicion. Christ warned the man who wanted to follow him that "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head" and He warned, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven..." Paul comparing himself with the False 'Apostles' said that he "preached the gospel of God to you free of charge", but the False 'Apostle' "takes from you" (2 Cor. 11). The faithful pastor does not seek a wage from poor people, nor does he ask for more than he needs.

Many of these televangelists continue the 'grand' tradition of the false teachers in the Apostles' day and the Vatican.

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies... And many will follow their sensuality, and BECAUSE OF THEM THE WAY OF TRUTH WILL BE BLASPHEMED. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words... who indulge in the lust of defiling passion... They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing... For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh..." (2 Peter 2)

Re Jean Cauvins last paragraph-By churches frowning upon marriage in any other form than heterosexual-by demonising those who are homosexual they do a tremendous diservice. Good, decent, caring citizins are being regarded as little more than sexual objects being guided by insatiable sin. This is a nonsense.Heterosexual couples can have a sexual attraction to each other. Heterosexual couples may or may not choose to procreate or physically can't. Homosexual couples may be drawn to each other for reasons other than sexual drive or desire. This seems a hard concept for anyone who isn't homosexual to grasp. One human can love another human deeply and with dignity, care and nurture the other in a healthy homely environment , irrespective of their gender

If your going to label a couples ability to simply procreate with each other and produce offspring as the defining factor in the validity of a relationship or marriage then by the same token you should add those who can't have children or decide not to in the list of those who can't get married in church

Ryan_,

Perfectly logical and irrefutable, unless you can majestically quote the bible with increasing volume and passion (or upper case) as you reach the blasphemy parts.

Although I do agree with some of Jean Cauvins post for instance

If a man professes to follow Christ and His Apostles, but is amassing wealth to himself, he is a hypocrite to start with, and should be treated with great suspicion.

So that's most western religions covered.

Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests

no argument there.

Why is it that someone can quote the bible in a blog post, even though as a document it's clearly unverified, of dubious origins and debatable authorship whereas if you try and quote lengthy portions of an article of someone elses, the moderators block it?

Are religious texts exempt from proving their legitimacy and lack of bias? Which person on the moderating panel decides which religious texts are exempt and which are not? Can I quote unhindered from the Avestan of Zoastrianism, or how about the Th谩nh Ng么n Hi峄噋 Tuy峄僴 of Cao Dai? How much of the bible can I quote in a single post before moderation kicks in? Are comments full of offensive material and narrow minded thinking acceptable if quoted from a religious text?

Just something to think about for all you people out there who like to quote the bible. Whilst I think it's a load of drivel, personally, some people might find a lot of the contents of the 'Good' Book highly offensive.

Natman: good point! When I see paragraph after paragraph of biblical quoting to justify discrimination and judgment against humanity in any form (even calling them sinners) I perform my own moderation and switch off from the post entirely. Perhaps the day will come when people realise the true harm of such material in promoting separation and more (both within people and between people), such that it is moderated off!!