Ted Haggard Seeks Financial Support

"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for
whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.
For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh
reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit
will of the Spirit reap everlasting life."

GALATIANS 6:7-8

This made me want to cry for a myriad of reasons but most importantly is that much of the Church probably doesn't see that demonic monsters have infiltrated the churches. Haggard as counselor to Christians? I think not.

Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

indeed what happened with bro Haggert was a most grievous thing. Lest we think we are beyond falling into that sort of iniquity, we ought to remember the Mercy God has shown us for our sin. Christ said that to even look at a woman lustfully is to commit adultery. i would think the same standard applies for women regarding men so let us examine ourselves to see if we are guilty of this and if so, consider the Mercy God has shown us for it...

2 scriptures were brough to my rememberance at this time concerning Judgment and Mercy toward one another. from 1 Corinthians 5 we have this scenario:

[b]1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. 2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged F14 already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed F15 for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, F16 not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
[/b]

clearly we ought not associate with wickedness but put such people out. i think we got that part on lock...

however this aspect of it i believe we all need much work on...from 2 Corinthians 2 concerning this brother in the above text:

[b]1 But I determined this with myself, that I would not come again to you in heaviness. 2 For if I make you sorry, who is he then that maketh me glad, but the same which is made sorry by me? 3 And I wrote this same unto you, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all. 4 For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you.5 But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all. 6 Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, F5 which was inflicted of many. 7 So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. 8 Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him. 9 For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. 10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person F6 of Christ; 11 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

[/b]

the bringing back in of that lost brother...namely Forgiving...oh we're quick to throw the book at one another sometimes...a little easier on ourselves though sometimes...a tad harsher on the crimes committed by others that we ourselves are not guilty of...lenient with our own crimes sometimes...or maybe i'm just tripping and this has no basis. somehow i think not, and perhaps it is because i know myself i have been given much Grace in this area but am in ever desperate need of Him lest i falter...my iniquity is ever before me said David, so is mine to me lest i think i am above falling or think i am no longer in need of Grace...

Paul says to welcome back this brother lest he be consumed with much sorrow. in this pitiful state, our brother is a sitting duck for the enemy and because he is our brother, we can't leave him out to dry. i know for sure i'd not want to be left out there in the cold...don't know about you...Note Paul also says that we ought to forgive lest the enemy take advantage of us...meaning the whole...those in need of forgiveness and those who need to pass it out...if we have been forgiven by God of our sin, we ought to pass that on to one another. i fear we Christians are not always to Gracious or willing to show the Mercy which we have been shown to others (even among ourselves) and so we are oft kept at arms length on account of that wickedness...God forgive us for not forgiving and may we receive Grace from Him to forgive.AMEN. i am not saying at all that one should be absolved from whatever consequences (legal or otherwise) from one's sin. Paul clearly says we ought to receive whatever punishment is due. However Paul also clearly says that afterward we ought to bring our brother back in to comfort him lest the enemy hustle even us who weren't guilty of anything but making us think more of ourselves than we ought.

i am grieved by what happened but as God has shown me Mercy, i can't help but show bro Haggert the same Mercy...so i bow my knees to our Lord and God that He restore this brother to Himself and to us, and us to him also.

it is my hope brethren that behind our speaking out against this wickedness, we spend much more time in travailing prayer for our brother than we do speaking against this. and i hope we so do for one another when we discover wickedness, let this be how we treat one another that the world may once more know we are Christians by how we Love another...let us Love one another as Jesus Loved us, Rebuking and Forgiving one another as He did us.AMEN.

Grace and Peace are ours in Jesus' NAme.AMEN.

bro Compliments
Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

The man lied about his relationship with this homosexual, lied about the drugs and then later on confessed in other interviews that he did get the drug from his guy.

indeed this is true. this makes me wonder how many times i've lied in a similar fashion and how often God has forgiven me...do you or have you wondered the same?

The problem Ironman is this, he would have still been seeing him were it not for this guy squealing on him. He was getting away with it and he would have still been doing this had he not been exposed.

could we not also say the same for some of the sins we are yet guilty of? that we keep them hidden until we are forced (because they are exposed) to confront them...remembering some of my own instances with this...do you remember times when God exposed your own sin that you would confront it?

It's clear that Ted Haggard is not repentive, he will not confess that he has leanings towards homosexuality. He is thinking that once this all blows over, I will go to another town start all over and this other part of me will just go away. It won't go away, he will fall to this again. Once you taste this type of lust it ain't easy to get rid of. He was counseled and declared straight. Homosexuality is very deceptive.

mmm i am thinking now of how i myself have not been repentive...can you think of any instances in which you have been like bro Haggert?

This is an awful thing to say, but Haggard needs to fall into sin again until he learns that he cannot overcome the flesh by doing good works, thats why he is going to college. The best cure for a hypocrite is to fall into sin, it will either harden your heart or cry out to God for mercy.

i don't know that it is necessary for bro Haggert to fall into sin once more to come to repentance but i do know that it is Necessary...dare i say IMPERATIVE that we as his brethren hold him up in prayer that God show Mercy.

remembering GOd's own Mercy toward me...as one who has benefitted from It i must share it. let us pray brother.

Grace and PEace are ours in Jesus.AMEN.

Brother Jimmy Swaggart was exposed as well, but he repented and sought the LORD for help. He refused the Assemblies of God's counsel which was a wise decision, their counseling is laced with psychology. Ted Haggard needs to learn from Jimmy Swaggart.

Exactly how did Swaggart repent?

Compliments,

That is a very high perch you are about to fall off.

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=10733&forum=34&post_id=&refresh=Go]Jonathan Edwards - Undiscerned Spiritual Pride[/url]

Hello...

I am praying for this man, his wife and family.

I had never heard of the man before his public exposure. From what I have learned, I stand miles apart from him in some areas of doctrine. While I won't send him any financial aid (for his Master's Degree), I do believe that the last chapter in his life has yet to be written. Even if he has been a complete fraud, the end of his life hasn't been written. I pray that he has a glorious, truly Christ-centered ending!

:-)

bro Compliments

Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

Ironman, your speaking to one who knows how to sin and does it quite well. Can you carry on a conversation without having to put forth Pauls admonition? I am fully aware of what your saying.

have we grown to a point where we no longer need to hear this admonition? i know i haven't. i don't know that it could ever become irrelevant...in fact i feel that the moment we start to think that, we become sitting ducks. i may well be wrong or this admonition may well apply far much more to me than to you as God may have given you Grace to come to a point where you need not be reminded of this...i yet need it.

I know what this is saying, I am not talking about this. My posts have nothing to do with this, I am not speaking out of a self righteous pig. I am speaking about this man Ted Haggard. I know what I am talking about when it comes to homosexuality.

but brother Compliments, don't you think that our response to a brother who sins, be it in homosexuality, adultery or whatever ought to be the same as what Paul prescribed in this instance of adultery?Or should we be more harsh on homosexuality? i believe we ought not to show partiality...i have not seen the same outrage over fornication among our children, or adultery among us which i think has done far more damage than any other sexual sin.

i am trying to understand here bro so i ask that you bear with me.

God exposed this man because He loves him and wants him to repent of this thing and to seek Him for healing.

as He does with all sin yet it seems there is by far more outrage over this...do you think homosexuality is a worse sin than fornication and adultery...or gossip? i fear (and maybe my fears are unfounded) that the outrage is more an effort to keep us from tending to fornication and adultery which are more rampant among us...not saying homosexuality ought to be left off the hook by any means, just equal outrage...or don't we want to squeal on ourselves?

What your missing in my point my Brother is this, he would have continued on in homosexual activity had he not been exposed. He denies that he had any homosexual desires and/or practiced it. This tells me that he is still holding on to it and it will show up again. I know what I am talking about, I've said the same words to someone who accused me and I kept denying it, the more I denied the more it became evident, until I confessed it to a confidant. But he's denying it. Do you understand what I am saying?

oh no bro, i understand what you are saying that save for the exposure he would have continued...then again he may yet be continuing, that is not the issue. my thing is are you praying for him as much as you are speaking out? yes you have done well in pointing out the problem, are we working together in prayer for God's solution though?

Pray for him yes by all means, also pray that God will expose this in his life without having to bring more of a reproach on the name of Jesus.

will you also pray? you know, this has been a period of reflection for me. you know every sin we commit does bring reproach to the Name of God whether it is seen or not...i've brought much reproach to His Name...i bless HIm for and see more clearly His Mercy on me that in spite of myself...basking in the blessedness of that MErcy...

Preachers who make jokes about those caught in a particular sin will get caught in the same sin. God loves sinners, He hears their hurting cry every day. And then He becomes grieved when He hears preachers joking about sinners and those caught in their sin.

true, makes me wonder how He feels when we fail to pray for one another as we ought...God Help us be Merciful...

Grace and Peace are ours in Jesus.AMEN.

by KrispyKrittr on 2007/8/27 7:43:22

How about Ted Haggard stop viewing the ministry as an occupation... and go get a job and support his family like the rest of us instead of expecting other people to give him money.

Compliments wrote:
The man lied about his relationship with this homosexual, lied about the drugs and then later on confessed in other interviews that he did get the drug from his guy.

The problem Ironman is this, he would have still been seeing him were it not for this guy squealing on him. He was getting away with it and he would have still been doing this had he not been exposed.

It's clear that Ted Haggard is not repentive, he will not confess that he has leanings towards homosexuality. He is thinking that once this all blows over, I will go to another town start all over and this other part of me will just go away. It won't go away, he will fall to this again. Once you taste this type of lust it ain't easy to get rid of. He was counseled and declared straight. Homosexuality is very deceptive.

Brother Jimmy Swaggart was exposed as well, but he repented and sought the LORD for help. He refused the Assemblies of God's counsel which was a wise decision, their counseling is laced with psychology. Ted Haggard needs to learn from Jimmy Swaggart.

This is an awful thing to say, but Haggard needs to fall into sin again until he learns that he cannot overcome the flesh by doing good works, thats why he is going to college. The best cure for a hypocrite is to fall into sin, it will either harden your heart or cry out to God for mercy.

I know, for I am one of the chief of sinners.

Wow, Compliments, I am quite taken aback by all your comments on this thread. Especially the above ones.

It is a sad and disheartening sin that MY former pastor committed. He should not have done the things he did, and he should have been more open with his mentors, and those around him he had for inegrity purposes. He fell, and he fell hard into the trap of the enemy.

I guarantee, that if you were ever caught in sin that would embarass you and bring your ministry to ruins, you would most likely want to lie, just the same. He lost his ministry, many friends, trust within his family, his leadership in the NAE, and many other things. Imagine your life coming to a sudden crashing halt... it would suck big time, and it did for him.

You can not sit here and judge a man's heart based upon the very small detail that you know, and say that he is unrepentative. He is still getting counseling, and his entire family is getting counseling. It is going to be a long road for all of them.

Just because someone sins doesn't mean they lose heart and passion for ministry. Have you ever lost a desire to serve God, because you've sinned? If you haven't, then why put that on another brother?

Have you talked with Ted Haggard? Did he tell you that he still longs for a homosexual lifestyle? Because I have been told quite the opposite from his family. He knows it is a horrible sin what he did, and he is working on his issues.

Can I ask you Compliments if you have sinned this week? If you have, then can I ask why you are allowed to minister to people? Did God only die for your sins? Or did He die for everyone's? Are you not aware that even as horrendous as the sin was committed by Ted Haggard, that God still forgave him? (Or are you judging God's heart, too?)

Just because a man wants to go to school, because he knows he will never pastor again, doesn't mean anything other then the fact that he still needs to earn a living. Have you ever thought about that? I don't know what your job is, but let's say that you could never do what you are doing ever again, and you couldn't do it anywhere on this planet. Uh, wouldn't you be wanting to get a different job? After all you would still have yourself and a family to support, wouldn't you? Is Ted Haggard, not allowed to do the same?

I am so glad that God is his judge, and not you. You have a calloused heart.

By the way, if you read the article you will note that he is going to school, and working on a support basis in the Dream Center. He is not getting paid an hourly or salary wage. This is why he is asking for help.

P.S. To say that someone needs to fall into sin again, when they are trying so hard to get back on their feet and never let that happen again, and they are crying out to God on a daily basis, is such a horrible, horrible thing to say.

Krispy, both he and his wife discussed these matters. Getting a degree in psychology to be a prof. counselor, is sorta stepping out of ministry, wouldn't you think? By the way, He and his wife both are pursuing these degrees. they want to do counseling together.

[i]Talkativeness is utterly ruinous to deep spirituality. The very life of our spirits passes out in our speech, and hence all superfluous talk is a wast of the vital forces of the heart. In fruit- growing, it often happens that excessive blossoming prevents a good crop, and often prevents fruit altogether; and by so much loquacity the soul runs wild in word-bloom, and bears no fruit. I am not speaking of sinners, nor of legitimate testimony for Jesus, but of that incessant loquacity of spiritual persons, of the professors of purifying grace. It is one of the greatest hindrances to deep, solid union with God. Notice how people will tell the same thing over and over; how insignificant trifles are magnified by a word of words; how things that should be buried are dragged out into gossip; how a worthless, nonessential is argued and disputed over; how the solemn, deep things of the Holy Spirit are talked of in a light, rattling manner; until one who has the real baptism of divine silence in his heart feels he must unceremoniously tear himself away to some lonely room or forest, where one can gather up the fragments of his mind, and rest in God. Not only do we need cleansing from sin, but our natural human spirit needs a radical death to its noise and activity and wordiness. See the devil effects so much talk.

First, it dissipates the spiritual power. The thought and feelings of the soul are like powder and steam --- the more they are condensed, the greater their power. The steam that, if properly compressed, would drive a train forty miles an hour, if allowed too much expanse, would not move it an inch; and so the true unction of the heart, if expressed in a few Holy Ghost selected words, will sink into minds and remain forever, but if dissipated in any rambling conversation, is likely to be of no profit.

Second, it is a waste of time. If the hours spent in useless conversation were spent in secret prayer, or deep reading, we would soon reach a region of soul-life and divine Peace beyond our present dreams.[/i]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=10789&forum=34&start=10&viewmode=flat&order=1]G.D. Watson ~ Soul Food[/url]

crsschk wrote:
[i]Talkativeness is utterly ruinous to deep spirituality. The very life of our spirits passes out in our speech, and hence all superfluous talk is a wast of the vital forces of the heart. In fruit- growing, it often happens that excessive blossoming prevents a good crop, and often prevents fruit altogether; and by so much loquacity the soul runs wild in word-bloom, and bears no fruit. I am not speaking of sinners, nor of legitimate testimony for Jesus, but of that incessant loquacity of spiritual persons, of the professors of purifying grace. It is one of the greatest hindrances to deep, solid union with God. Notice how people will tell the same thing over and over; how insignificant trifles are magnified by a word of words; how things that should be buried are dragged out into gossip; how a worthless, nonessential is argued and disputed over; how the solemn, deep things of the Holy Spirit are talked of in a light, rattling manner; until one who has the real baptism of divine silence in his heart feels he must unceremoniously tear himself away to some lonely room or forest, where one can gather up the fragments of his mind, and rest in God. Not only do we need cleansing from sin, but our natural human spirit needs a radical death to its noise and activity and wordiness. See the devil effects so much talk.

First, it dissipates the spiritual power. The thought and feelings of the soul are like powder and steam --- the more they are condensed, the greater their power. The steam that, if properly compressed, would drive a train forty miles an hour, if allowed too much expanse, would not move it an inch; and so the true unction of the heart, if expressed in a few Holy Ghost selected words, will sink into minds and remain forever, but if dissipated in any rambling conversation, is likely to be of no profit.

Second, it is a waste of time. If the hours spent in useless conversation were spent in secret prayer, or deep reading, we would soon reach a region of soul-life and divine Peace beyond our present dreams.[/i]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=10789&forum=34&start=10&viewmode=flat&order=1]G.D. Watson ~ Soul Food[/url]

Thanks, crsschk. This is a great reminder.

Occurences in the Body just seem to get more and more bizarre day by day ... :-o

Quote;
[b]"Can you carry on a conversation without having to put forth Pauls admonition?"[/b]

Perhaps this statement encompasses one of the major reasons why ...

[b]1Cor.11
[1] Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
[2] Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.[/b]

[color=FF0000]Do we keep the ordinances?[/color]

Compliments wrote:

Ben, I am not judging the man, I am judging this sin called homosexuality, to which he denies ever being involved with.

Well, let's make sure the facts are straight. He denied (past tense), but has since confessed.

Brother, you are totally forgiven. I wasn't trying to be harsh on you, so if you felt that way, I do apologize. I was more astonished at what I was reading, then anything.

Compliments...

I think that I understand the gist of what you are saying. You meant to talk about the sin and NOT the sinner. I suppose that you needed to clarify your statement, and I think that you did.

From what I have read, Ted Haggard's sin was shameful. While I never really knew much about the man before his sin, he was obviously held in high regard amongst some of the pentecostal/evangelical community. His exposure was quite public and humiliating both for his family AND for the people that he "pastored." It displayed an apparent hypocrisy in what he preached. Yet I can't help but wonder whether this could serve to draw him close to Jesus.

King David was caught into sin. He had an affair with a woman, made her pregnant, had her husband killed, and covered up the entire matter. Everything "worked out" for David UNTIL a certain prophet pointed his finger at him and proclaimed, "[i]Thou art the man![/i]" The repentance of David (as recorded in Psalm 51), especially when contrasted with the LACK of repentence from King Saul, is one of the greatest examples in the Word of God of the grace of God. God does not always allow to completely reap what we've sown. In this case, David deserved to die. But God looked past the Law and into the depths of David's broken heart. David was a man after God's own heart -- and he knew that his sins had shamed the Lord.

David repented and God listened. Yes, David suffered some natural consequences for his sin -- but he never suffered the bulk of what he deserved. Why?

The last chapters in David's life, as are recorded in the books in Heaven, were not yet written (Revelation 20:12). When we read the rest of David's life, we realize that the man turned wholeheartedly from the Lord. While he was certainly still flawed (as is demonstrated by his census of Israel), we know that he continued to seek the Lord. In fact, one might say that David had a glorious ending. His "book" was no longer a tragedy -- but a tale of God's incomprehensible mercy!

Over 300 years later, when another king ruled in Judah, we learn about this remarkable understaning of the Lord. Hezekiah was king when the armies of the Assyrians were marching against Jerusalem. King Hezekiah turned back to the Lord and cried out for deliverance. What was the Lord's answer? 2 Kings 19:34 states that the Lord answered Hezekiah saying, "[i]For I will defend this city, to save it, for mine own sake, [b]and for my servant David's sake[/b][/i]."

Over 300 years after David died and nearly 350 years after David had sinned with Bathesheba, God still so thought highly of David to say that he would spare Jerusalem "[i]for my servant David's sake[/i]." What an awesome look into the heart of God! The Lord so admired David amongst men -- despite his very public sin and private confession -- that He told Hezekiah that He would spare Jerusalem for David. This admiration of David continued when Jesus was born. Jesus wasn't known as the son of Abraham, Isaac or Israel. He wasn't called the son of Jesse, Obed or Boaz. He was called the Son of David.

I'm not familiar enough with Ted Haggard's doctrine to draw conclusions about the validity thereof. However, I am not an adherant of the "institutional, mega-church" concept. I believe that they turn mere pastors into "celebrity mayors" (or kings) when God didn't plan them as such. Ted Haggard's institution obviously held quite a bit of clout in Colorado and in the United States. His institution, from what I have read, was extremely well-thought and apparently desired to do God's will (although in all actuality, God was probably lost in the details). The greatest tragedy in this whole story is the enormous reproach that this public exposure has brought to the Name of Christ (and the reputation of the true Church).

But the end is not yet. Ted Haggard's life story is not finished. What if this man truly fell on his face before the Lord? What if, one day, he realizes the greater error of his way? I'm not talking about depravity, hypocrisy, drugs or the unnatural sin of homosexuality. I'm talking about the building of "institutions" in the Name of Jesus, meant to "honor" the Name of Jesus, but not created with the true input of Jesus. What if he "remembers the height from which he has fallen" and returns to the Lord wholeheartedly in a Psalm 51 sort of way.

The last chapter of Mr. Haggard's life has yet to be written. Who knows how this story will end? I simply pray that God can turn this tragedy into something glorious! Perhaps God can use a has-been, willing yet broken man to turn the hearts of megapastors back to what truly matters?

That being said, I am not going to contribute financially to his desire for a Master's Degree (and a future career) in Counseling. A year from now, his income might be low enough to merit federal financial aid loans to pursue whatever degree he desires. I still believe that he hasn't emerged from the wilderness yet. Until I see the reflection of Christ oozing from his repentant pores, I cannot contribute the little that I currently have to bolster the career and financial income of this man. But I will contribute my prayers.

:-)

bro Krispy

Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

Apples to oranges... David was a political figure, not a priest. He was subject to the priests. In fact, David was not even allowed by God to build the temple.

i don't think bro that is so clear cut. Did the kings of Israel not have some role in minstering to the people? i think the kings of Israel had a lot to do with the spiritual condition of the people by their example. They may not have been priests in the sense of a Levite but being the ones God appointed, there is a priestly component to the office of king. Solomon built the temple...at it's dedication, he was very much involved with the offering of sacrifices and he was quite adulterous was he not? although this was later on, i believe that his forsaking of the priestly component of his kingship was more to do with chasing after the gods of his wives.

Yes he does. Paul made it clear what the qualifications are.

doesn't Paul also say that we are to restore the brother who has sinned after a period of being cast out? or doesn't this apply in this case?

So you're saying that once they are in the ministry they are no longer responsible to live up to the qualifications they were required to meet before they got in the ministry? That doesnt make sense.

i think that to be an erroneous assumption if you indeed think that is the implication. i believe we ought to always live up to the Standard. However when we fall short, irrespective of where God has us, He works to restore us. He shows us Mercy and i hope that we show one another the same Mercy. If God were to cast us out each time we failed...none of us would be here.

No one is perfect, however, there is a difference between a pastor who sees a woman and thinks too long about her... and a pastor who does what some we've seen lately do and bring disgrace not only on their name and their family and church... but also on the church at large. I'm NOT ok'ing secret sin, but there is a big difference between having an impure thought and asking the Lord to forgive, and indulging in what these men did... and asking for forgiveness an coming clean AFTER they are caught and exposed.

bro, this got me thinking...is this really so? is the only sin which brings shame to the family of a man, the office he is in and the Church and ultimately God, that sin which is exposed? Somehow this doesn't sit right with my spirit. i think the more insidious sins are those which are not so out in the open...i see no difference in the gravity of the sin of a man committing adultery in his heart vs that man whose sin is exposed. Both do great harm to the body. i think though we tend to judge more harshly those sins which are exposed compared to the secret ones...for which some of us are guilty. ultimately God knows and sees all so as far as He is concerned, all sin is exposed before Him. as surely as we see bro Haggert on display in front of us, so are we exposed, and all the more before God. If we fail to show Mercy, we won't get any either. Perhaps that has something to do with the harshness of the coming Judgment on us...we have Judged harshly ourselves... :-(

anyhow bro for me this is period of reflecting and considering the Mercy which God has shown me. God ought to have struck me down a long time ago yet here i am, there but for the Grace of God...

i hope we are praying as hard for bro Haggert that God may yet show Mercy as He has shown us Mercy, as we are speaking out here.

Grace and Peace are ours in Jesus. AMEN.

bro Krispy
Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

Absolutely Paul said this. However, we can gather that in consideration of Pauls clear cut qualification for leadership, he was not speaking of restoring the brother to the previously held ministry... he was speaking of restoring him to fellowship with the church.

that's the sense i meant and i was concerned because it seemed like that was getting lost in the shuffle. i'm glad this wasn't and my concern wasn't founded.

i wonder though, if the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, ultimately God has the final say right? i'm not saying that men who fall short ought not to be removed but i am asking that in that, does God not reserve the right to restore if in fact He has placed that man in that position and the man is repentant?

Something to consider?

bro Krispy i was hoping you would have answered some of the questions i asked in the last post. were they too thorny or simply unfounded?
Grace and Peace are ours in Jesus.AMEN.

You know, I think this sets a bad example. He should be repentent and never ask anyone for anything again -except forgiveness and mercy.

I make less than 30k a year working for a Christian non-profit, I have over 40k in college loans to pay off. I would like to be a missionary working among the world's unreached people groups some day, but that chain has hold of me for the time being.

Hudson Taylor once said, 'God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, we need not be vegitarians.' I trust that God will provide the money for me (probably through hard work) and open a door to serve Him in missions, if that is his plan... I would love to be able to go ask for a handout, but I doub that it's part of the Lord's design.

What I don't get it is why young, able-bodied men and women of faith have to work hard, skimping and saving to get an education while a disgraced pastor can just ask his congregation to foot the bill.

You know, he should have to skimp and save or take out loans like the rest of us. Have you considered a job at McDonalds? Plenty of people have worked part time jobs to support going back to school.

I wouldn't want to recieve counceling from anyone who doesn't have the discipline or work ethic to make his own way in this world... counceling is about helping people break the bonds that hold them... while Mr. Haggard is obviously still bound by his own laziness and wants a hand-out from his church.

Mabye I'm being too harsh...

[b]Bro Krisp wrote;[/b]
"Absolutely Paul said this. However, we can gather that in consideration of Pauls clear cut qualification for leadership, he was not speaking of restoring the brother to the previously held ministry... he was speaking of restoring him to fellowship with the church."

[b]Bro Ironman wrote;[/b]
"i wonder though, if the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, ultimately God has the final say right? i'm not saying that men who fall short ought not to be removed but i am asking that in that, does God not reserve the right to restore if in fact He has placed that man in that position and the man is repentant?

Something to consider?"

--- Hmmmm ...

i too agree with bro Krisp's take, and as to bro. Ironman's question i also believe that the "gifts and calling of God are without repentance", but to put that in it's purist context (i may be wrong here) isn't this talking about a nation (Israel - comprised of many men over millenia), and not just one man as in the case of being called to "pastor"? ...

OK, even for arguments sake, let's say that the gifts of Holy Spirit for this ministy, and even the calling to this ministry are without repentance, meaning that the gifts and calling in itself are always there in the man, the question i have then is if the man of God break's God's conditions in His Word for the utilization of said calling/gifts of the pastorship, would God, in reference to bro Ironman's question of restoration, restore such a man to that same ministry? ...

Personally i don't think so ... Why, because yes[color=FF0000] i do believe that God can do anything He wants to EXCEPT go against His own Word, and He is the one that "God breathed" the following ordinances in His Word to His Church about the office of bishop ...[/color]

[b]1Tim.3[/b]
[1] This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
[2] [color=FF0000]A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,[/color] vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
[3] Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
[4] One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
[5] (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
[6] Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
[7] [color=FF0000]Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.[/color]

[b]Tit.1[/b]
[1] Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
[5] For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
[6] If any be [color=FF0000]blameless, the husband of one wife,[/color] having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
[7] [color=FF0000]For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled,[/color] not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
[8] But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
[9] Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

To me if a bishop divorces, even in argument that he still may be in the possession (technically) of both gift and calling, the (technicality) of his breaking one of the most important qualifications cancels his effectiveness in the position, and if in fact such a one continues in the calling i don't think it's God who has restored him, but he himself, which i also believes puts him then at even greater odds with God via His own Word ...

So for me (especially), any pastor/bishop who divorces has forfieted his use of God to pastor, and personally i'd never sit under such (ever) if i was aware of it ... Would he be my brother in the Lord as a fellow pewster, you bet, but never again as a pulpiteer that i'd sit under ... So if Randy White was married prior to Paula, my question to him would be, "What part of the above scriptures didn't you get", and if he insists on continuing even after a second divorce, "Do you really fear God"? ... And as for sitting under a woman bishop/pastor, according to the Pauline ordinances i'll not be doing that either - ever! - i don't care who thinks it's politically incorrect or insensitive to the feminist agenda ...

i think there may be grayer areas under "blameless", but being the type of "black and white" kinda guy i am i'll have to leave that up to others less "legalistic" than myself ... But i will say as as in bro Swaggarts, and bro Haggard's cases, both have kinda shot "blameless" to smitterens, and think that they, and others like them have provided awful reports to those "without", and have broken even another of the qualifications of being a good bishop, that of not being self-willed, and we'll not even mention the qualification of "not given to filthy lucre" ...

Blessings in He who is the giver of His commandments and statutes, and expects us to obey them exactly how He dictates and not of our own self-willed devices ---

Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

i too agree with bro Krisp's take, and as to bro. Ironman's question i also believe that the "gifts and calling of God are without repentance", but to put that in it's purist context (i may be wrong here) isn't this talking about a nation (Israel - comprised of many men over millenia), and not just one man as in the case of being called to "pastor"? ...

bro R. this had me thinking a bit. could there not be a duality going on which speaks to the nation and individuals at the same time? How does this affect our current walk with God?

indeed the prerequisites of being a bishop are spelled out plainly. does this mean that the bishop is held to a higher standard than we pewsters or do we hold them up to a higher standard? i think sometimes we don't hold one another up prayer or accountable as we ought to, if we did i think we would have much less mess to deal with. i haven't seen anywhere in the text you brought up that the violation of those standards leaves the man in question without hope of being restored to that office? does blamelessness mean only being sinless as far as the prerequisites go or is there room for genuine repentance? i am thinking of our own shortcomings here and wondering if these violations (albeit not in public but nonetheless bringing shame to God's Name) are the same or is there a specific difference when it comes to those who hold offices of various kinds?

To me if a bishop divorces, even in argument that he still may be in the possession (technically) of both gift and calling, the (technicality) of his breaking one of the most important qualifications cancels his effectiveness in the position, and if in fact such a one continues in the calling i don't think it's God who has restored him, but he himself, which i also believes puts him then at even greater odds with God via His own Word ...

indeed to violate the marriage covenant does indeed make one less effective and quite likely disqualified from being a bishop. hadn't thought of what you said at the end about the possibility of a man restoring himself...that's bad business...it seems that our Lord may well be making things such that the women preachers are being sat down one by one.

very interesting, it seems that God is rejecting and exposing those who ran ahead and were not sent of Him.

Grace and Peace are ours in Jesus.AMEN.

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:

I'm not familiar enough with Ted Haggard's doctrine to draw conclusions about the validity thereof. However, I am not an adherant of the "institutional, mega-church" concept. I believe that they turn mere pastors into "celebrity mayors" (or kings) when God didn't plan them as such. Ted Haggard's institution obviously held quite a bit of clout in Colorado and in the United States. His institution, from what I have read, was extremely well-thought and apparently desired to do God's will (although in all actuality, God was probably lost in the details). The greatest tragedy in this whole story is the enormous reproach that this public exposure has brought to the Name of Christ (and the reputation of the true Church).
:-)

ccchhhrrriiisss,

As I am sure you aware, nobody is perfect and no church is perfect. Were there flaws in my church. Sure. However New Life church has been a wonderful church. It is through the leadership there, and more importantly my relationship with God, that has brought a desire in me to want to start a ministry and to see revival take place. There have been a number of church's that have seen how well the church has been run (prior to the fall of Ted Haggard) and have modeled many areas in which New Life has succeeded in ministry.

Not all mega-churches are bad. Remember the several stories in Scripture of Jesus feeding the 5000 men, not counting women and children? That would be mega "church" gathering, would it not?

iansmith wrote:
You know, I think this sets a bad example. He should be repentent and never ask anyone for anything again -except forgiveness and mercy.

I make less than 30k a year working for a Christian non-profit, I have over 40k in college loans to pay off. I would like to be a missionary working among the world's unreached people groups some day, but that chain has hold of me for the time being.

Hudson Taylor once said, 'God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, we need not be vegitarians.' I trust that God will provide the money for me (probably through hard work) and open a door to serve Him in missions, if that is his plan... I would love to be able to go ask for a handout, but I doub that it's part of the Lord's design.

What I don't get it is why young, able-bodied men and women of faith have to work hard, skimping and saving to get an education while a disgraced pastor can just ask his congregation to foot the bill.

You know, he should have to skimp and save or take out loans like the rest of us. Have you considered a job at McDonalds? Plenty of people have worked part time jobs to support going back to school.

I wouldn't want to recieve counceling from anyone who doesn't have the discipline or work ethic to make his own way in this world... counceling is about helping people break the bonds that hold them... while Mr. Haggard is obviously still bound by his own laziness and wants a hand-out from his church.

Ian, why can't you read up on the story in the newspaper. It might help you out. If you didn't get it in the first sentence, this was sent to a public newspaper. This WAS NOT sent to the congregation.

Also, if you would read the article, you would find that, while going to school, he was asked to help out, on a financially supported basis, the Dream Center, by the pastor of the church that runs it. Ted isn't sure if he is even going to get a dime, but at least he was trying. Could he work at Mcdonald's? Sure, but why not trust in the Lord for provision, when being asked to help out, by his pastor, and one of his counselors, a place with a lot of hurting people?

I'm guessing you may not know the feeling of going from $119,000/yr down to basically zero, and trusting on the Lord to provide some form of finacial income to feed him and his family. That is a tough spot to be, brother. Have grace, as Jesus does!

By the way.... on the note of talking about Ted Haggard, the new pastor being voted in (the voting took place today) as the pastor for New Life Church is a gentleman by the name of Pastor Brady Boyd. Anyone heard of him?

bro Ben
Greetings in Jesus' Name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

you said:

Not all mega-churches are bad. Remember the several stories in Scripture of Jesus feeding the 5000 men, not counting women and children? That would be mega "church" gathering, would it not?

indeed not all mega-churches are bad i don't think. however, i don't think that the 5000 being fed was a church gathering of any kind. it was a bunch of people who were enamored by this Man, they followed Him, got hungry and were fed. What happened the day after is very telling. The people went looking for Jesus and He knew why, they were hungry again. After all was said and done, not a single one of that 5000 devoted themselves to Jesus. Not a one, the only ones left were the 12. The 5000 wanted bread for now, not Eternal Living Bread. oh wait, maybe this was a megachurch gathering...assuming a large number of people come to church to see what they can get for now, rather than trying to be eqipped for the work needed to have a blessed eternity which Glorifies God...

something to think about?

Grace and Peace are ours in Jesus.AMEN.

Ironman.... you might want to read the Scriptures on it again. He taught them. He healed them. Later in the late evening hours, he fed them. Why would 10,000 + people just sit around for hours and hours waiting to be fed. No my friend, they were there to be taught and touched by Jesus.

Read Mark 8, and Matt. 15: 29-39, and Matt 14:13-23

IRONMAN wrote:
however, i don't think that the 5000 being fed was a church gathering of any kind.

I was saying this in a very loose sense. Obviously it wasn't an established church, or temple. However, they were massive crowds who followed him for days on end to hear his preaching and for some to be healed. I don't think you have any factual evidence, even Scripturally, that there was not one person who lived out their life according to Jesus' teachings, specifically to do with the times where there were large crowds.

As I am sure you aware, nobody is perfect and no church is perfect.

dear ben, in john the same crowd that wanted to make Him king later became the crowd that wanted Him crucified. john 6 shows us that many followed and listened to be healed and see what great works He did, but the moment He asked them to eat His flesh and drink His blood, they left. they were not in it for the long run. in every man-made church, there will be some who are in it for the long run and many who are only in it when they are blessed and they are healed and when they prosper. but when push comes to shove, many desert. many leave..

LoveHim wrote:
but the church that God is building is so perfect and so holy. our denominations are not, but His is perfect.

I whole-heartedly agree.

I will have to get back to you on the last portion you wrote. Headed to work...

bro Ben

Greetings in Jesus' name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

yes indeed they were waiting to tbe touched by Jesus to benefit immediately. They were healed and taught but the interest in Jesus was superficial. When Jesus said to them eat my body and drink my blood, there was none of them left with Him except the 12 and that is the meat of the matter. it is pretty plain in John 6:

[b]22 The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone; 23 (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks:) 24 When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus. 25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither? 26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. 27 Labour not F13 for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend F14 you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
[/b]

in the end, they didn't stay with Him which is what i was getting accross. This may well be a common thing among megachurches, people who seek God for immediate gain and then when things get rough, fall away.

Grace and Peace are ours in Jesus.AMEN.

Hi BenBrockway...

As I am sure you aware, nobody is perfect and no church is perfect. Were there flaws in my church. Sure. However New Life church has been a wonderful church. It is through the leadership there, and more importantly my relationship with God, that has brought a desire in me to want to start a ministry and to see revival take place. There have been a number of church's that have seen how well the church has been run (prior to the fall of Ted Haggard) and have modeled many areas in which New Life has succeeded in ministry.

Not all mega-churches are bad. Remember the several stories in Scripture of Jesus feeding the 5000 men, not counting women and children? That would be mega "church" gathering, would it not?

Please don't misunderstand me -- I don't mean to convey that this particular church (or any megachurch) is wrong in a [i]wicked[/i] sort of way. I'm not at all familiar with the Church in a doctrinal sense. From what I watched on Alexandra Pelosi's [i]Friends of God[/i], an exposé on Christianity in America, the Church actually seemed quite well-rounded in terms of doctrine. The leadership meetings and the interview with Ted Haggard seemed to express a desire by the Church to evangelize and refrain from obvious extremism. This is a strong contrast to the "easy faith" and "public displays of the supernatural" approach of many (particularly evangelical or charismatic) megachurches. Such churches often fail to teach such things as true repentance or a turning from a life of sin. They often reason from their pulpits that since we can’t be perfect, why try?

My problem with megachurches is much more complex (or perhaps, [i]simplistic[/i]). The modern megachurch appears to be organized as an "institutional corporation." While there are many goals within megachurches (such as outreach programs, evangelism, Sunday School, etc...), the underlying goal is to GROW IN NUMBERS. Megachurch pastors often profess that numeric growth is tied to "outreach." Therefore, large congregations are viewed as "successful" congregations. Adherents seem to convey that small congregations are "obviously" doing something "wrong."

Several years ago, I attended the "Pastor's School" at Phoenix First Assembly. Even as a teenager, I was aware of the Biblical inconsistencies in planning a megachurch. Tommy Barnett would often state, "[i]Don't get me wrong. I believe in a small congregation -- for about THREE WEEKS![/i]" He points to Peter's message on the day of Pentecost, where thousands were "added to their number." Yet they forget that believers at the time didn't meet in "temples." They met in homes, breaking bread and encouraging one another in the Lord. The only "public" meeting place listed in the Word was held at Solomon's Colonnade (an open air walkway to the Jewish Temple). While modern Churches try to explain our "sanctuaries" as New Testament versions of the "Temple" or "Tabernacle," they are far more reminiscent of the "Synagogue." No one went to the Tabernacle or Temple, except for the seasonal sacrifices or presentations. The synagogues, however, were in essence "schools" where individuals heard the readings of Scripture. In those days, few Jews owned scrolls (and few could even read them). Therefore, the Jewish leaders would hold public readings of the Scripture, with little to no commentary. Jesus broke such tradition in Luke 4, and it resulted in the town's desire to throw him off of a cliff. When the Church formed, they didn't make their own temples or "houses of worship." They were fully aware that the veil was torn, and God was not confined to a physical location. Our bodies are the Temple. The Church is just the accumulation of such individuals -- but not confined to the same exact doctrinal persuasions, time and location.

Why did the early church fail to build its own huge sanctuaries? Perhaps the Church at the time held a different view of "sanctuaries" than we do today. Our modern church buildings and gathering places are quite reminiscent of "temples." They are even referred to as the "House of God" in our songs, testimonies and lessons. Yet we know that God's presence is not confined to such a place. At what point did congregations start meeting in such structures? We would have to look to Rome for the answer.

When Emperor Constantine "converted" the entire Roman Empire into the "Holy Roman Empire," many of the preexisting Roman temples became "sanctuaries" for the Church. The Roman "holy days" honoring the Roman gods became "holidays" honoring "Christian" events -- such as the birth of Christ (Christmas) or the Resurrection of Christ (Easter -- in this case, retaining the name). Christians were no longer forced to "hide" within the confines of the underground church in danger of life and limb. All they had to do was sign up as a member of the local Roman Church congregation. Over time, people began referring to the building as the meeting place of the Church. The Roman priests stated this to signify that the "true" church met in the established meeting place -- and failure to do so signified spiritual infidelity. Eventually, the building itself became known simply as the "Church" -- a tradition that widely exists to this day.

The Reformation brought opposition to many established Catholic doctrines. However, few thought to question the need for Christian temples (sanctuaries). Luther's adherents built their own sanctuaries and organizations. Protestant denominations sprang up with nearly every disagreement over interpretation, and they in turn built their own temples and organizations. Eventually, England's monarch even established his own national "Church" (for a reason as petty as Henry VIII's marital annulment). Henry was simply a Catholic who wanted a divorce. He simply changed the name of the Catholic cathedrals into Church of England (or Anglican) cathedrals. However, state persecution of the underground Church continued. John Bunyan, after all, was imprisoned for simply preaching without a license from the Church of England.

In America, there was far less persecution. The colonies were, in part, founded by individuals fleeing Catholic and Anglican persecution. Towns were often founded by religious sects. Anglicans founded Jamestown under the authority of the Crown. Puritans and Congregationalists founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony on the principles of Puritanism and Calvinism. Quakers settled into Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, etc... Catholics came with the French and Spanish settlements. Yet these new churches, with the exception of the Congregationalists (who, at the time, didn't believe in building sanctuaries and rather met in one another's homes) followed the traditions of creating their own unique "houses of worship."

Fast forward several hundred years. Church meetings are still usually held within the walls of the particular "house of worship." If you ask the common churchgoer WHY they attend a particular congregation, they will give you several answers. Amongst them will include: 1. A place to worship God; 2. A place to learn about God's Word; 3. A place to bring sinners to meet God; and 4. A safe place to bring their families. While all of these are noble answers, they are filled with the fallacy of logic. We don't go to Church to worship, evangelize or learn about God. We are supposed to do this DAILY!

The assembly of ourselves together, according to Hebrews 10, is to encourage one another. This is not confined to a building. This can be done in the home, outside or anywhere. The modern megachurch makes the Church the central place of fellowship, teaching, evangelism (which seems like an odd place to attempt to convert people), etc... The thousands saved at Pentecost did NOT meet together in one place.

Today's denominations and sects are united by their various beliefs. But is this what God intended? I am currently attempting to write a book on the evolution of the Church as it has evolved AWAY from its original intent and simplicity. I believe that God can bring out another great awakening in this world. However, it will not be like the Pensacola type of "revival." It can be a revival of the pursuit of God -- in which the Church abandons multiplied century old traditions in favor of the original New Testament Church. Instead of building megachurch institutions divided by denominational creed -- it could be a Church that is united by the fellowship of faith. We don't have to believe the same miniscule details of doctrinal persuasion. We can agree on what truly matters, disagree on peculiarities, and still meet in one another’s home without risk of liability or government tax protection. This is the tradition of the underground, persecuted Church for centuries. In the Muslim and Communist world, believers have enjoyed this sort of assembly. The Church there has continued to endure harsh persecution through the encouragement from the local congregation found in one another's homes.

Yet this seems to be at odds with the goal of the modern megachurch. Persecution will eventually come -- even to America. Whether this happens BEFORE or AFTER the rapture is beside the point. Will today's megachurch congregations simply disappear? Or will they thrive like the congregations in Vietnam, North Korea, Iran or Cuba?

:-)

excellent post brother chris. it was very well written. where did you learn a lot of that stuff?? i learned a lot of that stuff from frank viola. have you heard of him?? i was blown away to realize that much of our traditions deviate from the word or were not even practiced by the early church to begin with..

anyways, good luck with the book. many of my friends that attend church do not know any of this and do not care if i even start to tell them some of this stuff. i don't even bother unless i really believe that the Lord is directing me to. otherwise, i just try to ignore statements like "welcome to church today"? or "did you go to church today"?. it's hard sometimes, but it is a way for me to pick up my cross and shut my mouth, ya know?? anyways, take care.

Bro Ironman you wrote;
"bro R. this had me thinking a bit. could there not be a duality going on which speaks to the nation and individuals at the same time? How does this affect our current walk with God?"

--- Bro, and i say this humbly, with no ill intent, and in love, but i think you're "over-thinking" this subject ... This is about the apostolic (Paul's) Holy Spirit inspired "ordinances (rules) of Church governance", which you and i have talked about in the past ...

[b]- What are the reasons for "ordinances" rules? ...

- Aren't there consequences for breaking them? ...

- Wouldn't you agree that even in the world, the bigger the rule break, the larger the consequence? ... [/b]

[color=FF0000]To me a example in the natural would be a lawyer, who was disbarred because he broke a major rule ... He still has all the giftings and knowledge of a lawyer, but the higher authority says he'll never legally practice law again in a courtroom, and if he ever does and is found out there'd be even bigger reprimands ... [/color]

i believe the "gifting and calling being without repentance" works for both the nation and individuals, i was just pointing out the "pointed" context toward Israel in Rom. 11 ... God sets the rules for everything, and as i've said to you before, He can do anything He wants to EXCEPT go against His rules, of which His Word is full of ... i believe that all of us who are truly saved are according to scripture "called" and by His rule of accepting that calling via Jesus as our Savior, it is without repentance (and to anyone wondering yes i believe in eternal security and won't argue about it if you don't) ... i also believe that there is gifting and calling to the 5-fold ministry, and there are set rules to follow while ministering in those callings, break the rules (as in the case of re-married pastors), and while the man might restore himself to the calling, according to the rules of scripture AGAIN i can't see how God could break His own recorded rule and do so ---

Bro Ironman you wrote;
"indeed the prerequisites of being a bishop are spelled out plainly. does this mean that the bishop is held to a higher standard than we pewsters or do we hold them up to a higher standard?"

--- Does God hold the apostle to a higher standard? ... How about a prophet, as you and i indentify, are we held by Him to a higher standard? ... i think so ... The pastor is of most import in gifting and calling because he acts as under-shepherd to the Great Shepherd ... i thank God i'm not called to pastor, for not only is he responsible for himself, as we all are, but responsible for others of our Lord's sheep ... You and i have bemoaned waht we've experienced in what we believe to be our calling, but (to me) it's an easier load to bear than being responsible for others of Christ flock ... Yikes - that's why we must pray for them! ...

Think of your recent dream, now who do you think He'll hold responsible for the slaughter of the babes? ... If He holds "watchmen" to a higher consequence for not blowing our trumpets, wouldn't it stand to reason He'd hold His undershepherd's to higher consequence for not tending His sheep? ...

[b]Acts.20[/b]
[28] Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

[b]1Pet.5[/b]
[1] The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
[2] Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
[3] Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
[4] And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. ---

Bro Ironman you wrote;
"i haven't seen anywhere in the text you brought up that the violation of those standards leaves the man in question without hope of being restored to that office?"

--- If you can't see it in the text then there's nothing else i can say, so may Holy Spirit make it plain ---

Bro Ironman you wrote;
"does blamelessness mean only being sinless as far as the prerequisites go or is there room for genuine repentance? i am thinking of our own shortcomings here and wondering if these violations (albeit not in public but nonetheless bringing shame to God's Name) are the same or is there a specific difference when it comes to those who hold offices of various kinds?"

--- There's always room for genuine repentance ...

But i'd say there's a HUGE difference regarding violations of the calling, particularly when it comes to "pastor" ... For one thing look how many times the rules for "pastor" are repeated in the Word ... How many saints do you know who are stumbled, crumbled, then left to bumble when anyone else save a pastor falls in violation? ... Nobody believes there are apostles any more ... Folk claiming the prophetic are for the large part seen as jokes ... Evangelist are good entertainment ... But pastor/teachers are followed by congregations of folk who look up to them as "spiritual leader", and as much as we can say we should all be looking to Christ, our High Priest in heaven knows human frailty and it's why He said "a bishop must be beyond reproach" ...

Paul is the "hard-man" in scripture, the guy spiritual libertines and Jezebels hate, the guy you've said you identify with, now you're seemingly trying to temper hard-ball with soft-ball rules via the mercy of God ... To my thinking the mercy of God doesn't have to restore someone to pastorship if they've broken the rules that say they're no longer usefull of Him in that calling, the mercy is that they can repent just like the rest of us and God doesn't turn them into a dust spot on the spot for failing in the first place ... Doc you know i believe that our Lord is constanly telling me that He wants me to operate in behalf the Body in the love of the Apostle John, but there's also a thing called "tough love", the love that calls things as God has said them in His rules ---

Bro Ironman you wrote;
"indeed to violate the marriage covenant does indeed make one less effective and quite likely disqualified from being a bishop. hadn't thought of what you said at the end about the possibility of a man restoring himself ... that's bad business ... it seems that our Lord may well be making things such that the women preachers are being sat down one by one."

--- Bro Ironman, how many times have we discussed "why" our Lord has to trot out His weirdos, because "leadership" has went haywire in breaking Christ's and, the subsequent Christ breathed,
Pauline rules ... If "leadership" in the gifts and calling of bishop we're doing what God required of them
we wouldn't be having these awful "witness-hindering" events happening now, neither would we be having this discussion on SI because it probably wouldn't even be here, and you and i would never know one another in the capacity of believing ourselves to be fellow "watchmen" ...

[color=CC0000]Bro Ironman i appreciate your "mercy-grace" motives in your posts, but truth be told if such fallen pastors were truly repentant, not self-willed, and more interested in not causing the flock to stumble any more than usually happens, they'd plead God's forgiveness, apologize to the saints, and then get on out of the way (just like you and i said we'll do if God proves us false) and leave Him to bringing in new "pastors", etc., (prayerfully) who'll be after His own heart ...[/color]

You said, "it seems that our Lord may well be making things such that the women preachers are being sat down one by one." ... Not just the women doc, and God knows it's my prayer that He knocks ALL down (including ourselves if we're false) who are not of His Will, Word and Way - and yesterdat wouldn't be soon enuf! ...

Blessings in He who's longsuffering we can't even begin to appreciate ---

Greetings in Jesus' name by Whose Blood we are Saved.AMEN.

Bro, and i say this humbly, with no ill intent, and in love, but i think you're "over-thinking" this subject ... This is about the apostolic (Paul's) Holy Spirit inspired "ordinances (rules) of Church governance", which you and i have talked about in the past

indeed i was and in so doing lost sight of the crux of the matter. Forgive me dear saints.it's all been put in perspective now.

To me a example in the natural would be a lawyer, who was disbarred because he broke a major rule ... He still has all the giftings and knowledge of a lawyer, but the higher authority says he'll never legally practice law again in a courtroom, and if he ever does and is found out there'd be even bigger reprimands ...

Think of your recent dream, now who do you think He'll hold responsible for the slaughter of the babes? ... If He holds "watchmen" to a higher consequence for not blowing our trumpets, wouldn't it stand to reason He'd hold His undershepherd's to higher consequence for not tending His sheep? ...

that makes it plain as day where for whatever reason it wasn't before.

But i'd say there's a HUGE difference regarding violations of the calling, particularly when it comes to "pastor" ... For one thing look how many times the rules for "pastor" are repeated in the Word ... How many saints do you know who are stumbled, crumbled, then left to bumble when anyone else save a pastor falls in violation? ... Nobody believes there are apostles any more ... Folk claiming the prophetic are for the large part seen as jokes ... Evangelist are good entertainment ... But pastor/teachers are followed by congregations of folk who look up to them as "spiritual leader", and as much as we can say we should all be looking to Christ, our High Priest in heaven knows human frailty and it's why He said "a bishop must be beyond reproach" ...

i see more clearly now especially when i consider the last bit you said and how we do look up to pastors as spiritual leaders.

Paul is the "hard-man" in scripture, the guy spiritual libertines and Jezebels hate, the guy you've said you identify with, now you're seemingly trying to temper hard-ball with soft-ball rules via the mercy of God ... To my thinking the mercy of God doesn't have to restore someone to pastorship if they've broken the rules that say they're no longer usefull of Him in that calling, the mercy is that they can repent just like the rest of us and God doesn't turn them into a dust spot on the spot for failing in the first place ... Doc you know i believe that our Lord is constanly telling me that He wants me to operate in behalf the Body in the love of the Apostle John, but there's also a thing called "tough love", the love that calls things as God has said them in His rules ---

i was hoping that the Mercy of God wouldn't get lost in the shuffle here. i didn't think at all that these men and women were exempt from the consequences of what they had done which do include being disrobed as it were.

Bro Ironman, how many times have we discussed "why" our Lord has to trot out His weirdos, because "leadership" has went haywire in breaking Christ's and, the subsequent Christ breathed,we wouldn't be having these awful "witness-hindering" events happening now, neither would we be having this discussion on SI because it probably wouldn't even be here, and you and i would never know one another in the capacity of believing ourselves to be fellow "watchmen" ...

indeed this is what it seemed to me.

there was something i said which i didn't finish off and meant to go back and ammend and it had to do with there not being explicit mention of the rejection of a bishop after faltering:

i haven't seen anywhere in the text you brought up that the violation of those standards leaves the man in question without hope of being restored to that office?"

the end of that thought was "so i take it then it is implied in the text" my apologies for the confusion bro.

Bro Ironman i appreciate your "mercy-grace" motives in your posts, but truth be told if such fallen pastors were truly repentant, not self-willed, and more interested in not causing the flock to stumble any more than usually happens, they'd plead God's forgiveness, apologize to the saints, and then get on out of the way (just like you and i said we'll do if God proves us false) and leave Him to bringing in new "pastors", etc., (prayerfully) who'll be after His own heart ...

and this brought me to something which our Lord dropped on me yesterday after the post along the lines of God's complaint to Jeremiah about the false prophets. These our brethren who have so faltered in this office and violated the contract, [i]placed themselves[/i] in those positions, not God. Yet in spite of this, God did work through them somehow to some degree. The evidence is that they had been divorced before, and the one is a woman who ought not to preach in the first place. so i guess we ought not be surprised at this really. indeed to fully repent would be to leave the office rather than to keep the show going as it has been said...sad thing is for those not called of God to the office, it is a show...

You said, "it seems that our Lord may well be making things such that the women preachers are being sat down one by one." ... Not just the women doc, and God knows it's my prayer that He knocks ALL down (including ourselves if we're false) who are not of His Will, Word and Way - and yesterdat wouldn't be soon enuf! ...

AMEN bro.

Grace and Peace are ours in Jesus' Name.AMEN.

LoveHim wrote:

As I am sure you aware, nobody is perfect and no church is perfect.

but the church that God is building is so perfect and so holy. our denominations are not, but His is perfect.

dear ben, in john the same crowd that wanted to make Him king later became the crowd that wanted Him crucified. john 6 shows us that many followed and listened to be healed and see what great works He did, but the moment He asked them to eat His flesh and drink His blood, they left. they were not in it for the long run. in every man-made church, there will be some who are in it for the long run and many who are only in it when they are blessed and they are healed and when they prosper. but when push comes to shove, many desert. many leave..

LoveHim, and Ironman. I did read John this morning while I was at work, so I do see where you both are coming from. Thanks for showing me this in Scripture. There is some Scripture in John (not pertaining to the 5000 fed) that does indicate that many did believe in Him, and put their faith in Him. However, there really isn't any relevancy to these facts that I bring up that pertain to our little side discussion (outside of Ted Haggard). So, I do thank you for clarifying this in Scipture.

Have a wonderful evening. May you both be blessed, in Jesus name!

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi BenBrockway...

As I am sure you aware, nobody is perfect and no church is perfect. Were there flaws in my church. Sure. However New Life church has been a wonderful church. It is through the leadership there, and more importantly my relationship with God, that has brought a desire in me to want to start a ministry and to see revival take place. There have been a number of church's that have seen how well the church has been run (prior to the fall of Ted Haggard) and have modeled many areas in which New Life has succeeded in ministry.

Not all mega-churches are bad. Remember the several stories in Scripture of Jesus feeding the 5000 men, not counting women and children? That would be mega "church" gathering, would it not?

Please don't misunderstand me -- I don't mean to convey that this particular church (or any megachurch) is wrong in a [i]wicked[/i] sort of way. I'm not at all familiar with the Church in a doctrinal sense. From what I watched on Alexandra Pelosi's [i]Friends of God[/i], an exposé on Christianity in America, the Church actually seemed quite well-rounded in terms of doctrine. The leadership meetings and the interview with Ted Haggard seemed to express a desire by the Church to evangelize and refrain from obvious extremism. This is a strong contrast to the "easy faith" and "public displays of the supernatural" approach of many (particularly evangelical or charismatic) megachurches. Such churches often fail to teach such things as true repentance or a turning from a life of sin. They often reason from their pulpits that since we can’t be perfect, why try?

My problem with megachurches is much more complex (or perhaps, [i]simplistic[/i]). The modern megachurch appears to be organized as an "institutional corporation." While there are many goals within megachurches (such as outreach programs, evangelism, Sunday School, etc...), the underlying goal is to GROW IN NUMBERS. Megachurch pastors often profess that numeric growth is tied to "outreach." Therefore, large congregations are viewed as "successful" congregations. Adherents seem to convey that small congregations are "obviously" doing something "wrong."

Several years ago, I attended the "Pastor's School" at Phoenix First Assembly. Even as a teenager, I was aware of the Biblical inconsistencies in planning a megachurch. Tommy Barnett would often state, "[i]Don't get me wrong. I believe in a small congregation -- for about THREE WEEKS![/i]" He points to Peter's message on the day of Pentecost, where thousands were "added to their number." Yet they forget that believers at the time didn't meet in "temples." They met in homes, breaking bread and encouraging one another in the Lord. The only "public" meeting place listed in the Word was held at Solomon's Colonnade (an open air walkway to the Jewish Temple). While modern Churches try to explain our "sanctuaries" as New Testament versions of the "Temple" or "Tabernacle," they are far more reminiscent of the "Synagogue." No one went to the Tabernacle or Temple, except for the seasonal sacrifices or presentations. The synagogues, however, were in essence "schools" where individuals heard the readings of Scripture. In those days, few Jews owned scrolls (and few could even read them). Therefore, the Jewish leaders would hold public readings of the Scripture, with little to no commentary. Jesus broke such tradition in Luke 4, and it resulted in the town's desire to throw him off of a cliff. When the Church formed, they didn't make their own temples or "houses of worship." They were fully aware that the veil was torn, and God was not confined to a physical location. Our bodies are the Temple. The Church is just the accumulation of such individuals -- but not confined to the same exact doctrinal persuasions, time and location.

Why did the early church fail to build its own huge sanctuaries? Perhaps the Church at the time held a different view of "sanctuaries" than we do today. Our modern church buildings and gathering places are quite reminiscent of "temples." They are even referred to as the "House of God" in our songs, testimonies and lessons. Yet we know that God's presence is not confined to such a place. At what point did congregations start meeting in such structures? We would have to look to Rome for the answer.

When Emperor Constantine "converted" the entire Roman Empire into the "Holy Roman Empire," many of the preexisting Roman temples became "sanctuaries" for the Church. The Roman "holy days" honoring the Roman gods became "holidays" honoring "Christian" events -- such as the birth of Christ (Christmas) or the Resurrection of Christ (Easter -- in this case, retaining the name). Christians were no longer forced to "hide" within the confines of the underground church in danger of life and limb. All they had to do was sign up as a member of the local Roman Church congregation. Over time, people began referring to the building as the meeting place of the Church. The Roman priests stated this to signify that the "true" church met in the established meeting place -- and failure to do so signified spiritual infidelity. Eventually, the building itself became known simply as the "Church" -- a tradition that widely exists to this day.

The Reformation brought opposition to many established Catholic doctrines. However, few thought to question the need for Christian temples (sanctuaries). Luther's adherents built their own sanctuaries and organizations. Protestant denominations sprang up with nearly every disagreement over interpretation, and they in turn built their own temples and organizations. Eventually, England's monarch even established his own national "Church" (for a reason as petty as Henry VIII's marital annulment). Henry was simply a Catholic who wanted a divorce. He simply changed the name of the Catholic cathedrals into Church of England (or Anglican) cathedrals. However, state persecution of the underground Church continued. John Bunyan, after all, was imprisoned for simply preaching without a license from the Church of England.

In America, there was far less persecution. The colonies were, in part, founded by individuals fleeing Catholic and Anglican persecution. Towns were often founded by religious sects. Anglicans founded Jamestown under the authority of the Crown. Puritans and Congregationalists founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony on the principles of Puritanism and Calvinism. Quakers settled into Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, etc... Catholics came with the French and Spanish settlements. Yet these new churches, with the exception of the Congregationalists (who, at the time, didn't believe in building sanctuaries and rather met in one another's homes) followed the traditions of creating their own unique "houses of worship."

Fast forward several hundred years. Church meetings are still usually held within the walls of the particular "house of worship." If you ask the common churchgoer WHY they attend a particular congregation, they will give you several answers. Amongst them will include: 1. A place to worship God; 2. A place to learn about God's Word; 3. A place to bring sinners to meet God; and 4. A safe place to bring their families. While all of these are noble answers, they are filled with the fallacy of logic. We don't go to Church to worship, evangelize or learn about God. We are supposed to do this DAILY!

The assembly of ourselves together, according to Hebrews 10, is to encourage one another. This is not confined to a building. This can be done in the home, outside or anywhere. The modern megachurch makes the Church the central place of fellowship, teaching, evangelism (which seems like an odd place to attempt to convert people), etc... The thousands saved at Pentecost did NOT meet together in one place.

Today's denominations and sects are united by their various beliefs. But is this what God intended? I am currently attempting to write a book on the evolution of the Church as it has evolved AWAY from its original intent and simplicity. I believe that God can bring out another great awakening in this world. However, it will not be like the Pensacola type of "revival." It can be a revival of the pursuit of God -- in which the Church abandons multiplied century old traditions in favor of the original New Testament Church. Instead of building megachurch institutions divided by denominational creed -- it could be a Church that is united by the fellowship of faith. We don't have to believe the same miniscule details of doctrinal persuasion. We can agree on what truly matters, disagree on peculiarities, and still meet in one another’s home without risk of liability or government tax protection. This is the tradition of the underground, persecuted Church for centuries. In the Muslim and Communist world, believers have enjoyed this sort of assembly. The Church there has continued to endure harsh persecution through the encouragement from the local congregation found in one another's homes.

Yet this seems to be at odds with the goal of the modern megachurch. Persecution will eventually come -- even to America. Whether this happens BEFORE or AFTER the rapture is beside the point. Will today's megachurch congregations simply disappear? Or will they thrive like the congregations in Vietnam, North Korea, Iran or Cuba?

:-)

Hi ccchhhrrriiisss,

I see where you are coming from now, and I do agree with what you are saying. It is an unfortunate things, isn't it?

Well spoken Chris.

***The latest news***

For those who even remotely care... ;-)

It has been made official today, Pastor Brady Boyd has replaced Ted Haggard at New Life Church. The congregational vote was cast yesterday and there was a 95% approval rating.

edited

Here is an article on the matter:

http://www.gazette.com/articles/church_26595___article.html/boyd_pastor.html

There are so many faith shaking things happening in our world today i feel led of Holy Spirit to point out this faith inspiring sermon ...

[b]In One Hour Everything is Going to Change[/b]
http://64.34.176.235/sermons/SID16114.mp3

Praise God from whom all blessings flow, especially for the ones we don't see as such ...

1John.5
[4] For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: [b]and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.[/b]

[b][color=3366CC]NO MATTER WHAT SAINTS - LETS KEEP OUR FAITH![/color][/b]

Compliments wrote:

as the pastor for New Life Church is a gentleman by the name of Pastor Brady Boyd.

They should rename the church the "Brady Bunch" :-P

Haha! Nice!

Haggard's e-mail and announcement 'unacceptable,' overseers say
By BRIAN NEWSOME
THE GAZETTE
August 29, 2007 - 6:14PM

Disgraced minister Ted Haggard’s e-mailed plea for money and his announced intention to return to religious work was “unacceptable” and “inappropriate,” according to a statement today by pastors overseeing his recovery.

The four-pastor team of overseers said in the statement that Haggard must seek secular employment to support himself and his family.

Reached by phone, Haggard said today he is barred from commenting on the overseers’ statement.

The overseers were assigned to help Haggard and his former church, New Life in Colorado Springs, recover from the scandal that broke in November when a former male prostitute said he and Haggard had a three-year sexual relationship and that Haggard had used methamphetamines.

Their authority over Haggard is written into the bylaws of New Life Church, which agreed to pay a severance package to Haggard that includes a year’s salary of $138,000. An agreement stipulates that Haggard must not talk publicly about his leaving the 10,000-member church.

Last week Haggard, who moved to Phoenix after he was fired by the Colorado Springs megachurch, sent an e-mail to ABC affiliate KRDO about his plans to work in a faith-based halfway house known as the Dream Center. The Dream Center is run by Tommy Barnett, one of Haggard’s spiritual mentors and head of the 15,000-member Phoenix First Assembly of God, which Haggard now attends.

Haggard asked for two years of monthly support while he worked and lived in the Dream Center and he and his wife finished earning degrees at the University of Phoenix.

The announcement came as a surprise to the overseers and the Dream Center.

According to the statement:

“After their fact-finding was complete, they (overseers) informed Mr. Haggard that his plan and his communications about it were unacceptable. Mr. Haggard’s solicitation for personal support was inappropriate. It was never the intention of the Dream Center that Mr. Haggard would provide any counsel or other ministry. Mr. Haggard will not be moving in or working with the Dream Center. He will not be doing any ministry. He will be seeking secular employment to support himself and his family.”

The statement did not say whether Haggard may have violated his agreement with the overseers. One of them, the Rev. Mike Ware, said before the release of the statement that they would not discuss Haggard or answer questions.

Asked whether the agreement with the overseers was still in effect, Haggard said, “Yes.”

Once one of the country’s most influential religious figures, Haggard resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and was removed from New Life when former escort Mike Jones said Haggard had paid him for gay sex and that Haggard would sometimes use methamphetamines. Haggard confessed to buying drugs and later admitted to “sexual immorality.”