Disgraced Minister Begins 'Restoration'

(AP)  There will be prayer, and perhaps the laying on of hands. There will be counseling and a confession. And there will be advice, confrontation and rebuke from "godly men" appointed to oversee the spiritual "restoration" of the Rev. Ted Haggard.

After tumbling from the pinnacle of the American evangelical movement amid allegations he snorted meth and cavorted with a male prostitute, Haggard has agreed to a rehabilitation process that could last three to five years.

"I see success approximately 50 percent of the time," said H.B. London, vice president for church and clergy at Focus on the Family, the conservative Christian ministry in Colorado Springs. "Guys just wear out and they can no longer subject themselves to the process."

Those who fail "end up selling cars or shoes or something, and being miserable and angry the rest of their lives," London said.

Haggard was president of the National Association of Evangelicals and senior pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs until last week, when a Denver man said Haggard paid him for sex nearly every month for three years and sometimes took methamphetamine during the encounters.

Haggard denied having sex with the man; he admitted buying meth but said he threw it away unused. He resigned from the NAE and days later was fired from his church after confessing to unspecified "sexual immorality."

London, who is not involved in Haggard's restoration, said the process will demand honesty from Haggard and determination from his overseers.

"It cannot be just a matter of friendship. It will have to become almost a confrontational relationship," he said. "You've got to confess your sins and you've got to have a group of people around you who will not let you whitewash the issue."

The process includes counseling, in groups and alone, and prayer. Each restoration is unique, with a program tailored for the needs of the participant.

"From the Christian perspective, we think in terms of prayer, we think in terms of what we call godly counsel, where godly men who are clean themselves insert themselves in the life of the one who is struggling," London said.

The symbolic laying on of hands may also be a part of the recovery, London said.

"I'm sure there will be those who lay their hands on Pastor Haggard as an act of faith, calling on the act of God to restore and heal," he said. "The prayer can be therapeutic, the laying on of hands can be ceremonial."

One of the men who agreed to oversee the restoration, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, has already withdrawn, citing a lack of time. The other two - Pastors Jack Hayford of The Church on the Way in Van Nuys, Calif., and Tommy Barnett of First Assembly of God in Phoenix - declined to comment on the specifics of Haggard's program.

It isn't clear whether Haggard will try to return to the ministry, at New Life or elsewhere. "He says that he has committed his life to God and that he is looking for direction as to where God can best use him," said Leonard Chessler, Haggard's lawyer and friend.

The Rev. Shawn Spear, a Brethren in Christ pastor in Hollidaysburg, Pa., knows at least part of what lies ahead for Haggard. After admitting he had an affair with a woman, Spear endured a painful yearlong separation from the ministry, went to counseling six times a month and worked to earn back the trust of his wife and his church.

It was brutal for his wife, Joy, as well. She said she suffered nightmares, had trouble sleeping and at times wanted to die.

"If God could have taken me at that point I would have been pleased, because you just didn't feel like you could take another day," she said.

Now they feel blessed: They say their marriage survived, even flourished, and their church accepted Shawn Spear back as minister.

"There's hope," he said. "There's grace. There's restoration."

[hermit22]

If a person were born with club feet, or heart defect or brain disease or cleft pallet, would we just say that is an "inborn characteristic" and neglect the problems and dismiss them as "normal"?

Is being a thief and "inborn characteristic"?
What about having a very angry personality?
Do men who cheat on their wives with other woman excuse themselves by saying that is his "inborn characteristic"?How many people are seduced into homosexuality? SEDUCED as CHILDREN! or ABUSED as children!

[jaerno]

By admitting that he had been struggling with his problem for all of his adult life, Ted Haggard hopefully will cause some fundamentalist Christians to rethink their doctrinal viewpoints about sexual orientation. Evangelicals by-and-large believe that sexual orientation is a matter of behavioral choice and is not an inborn characteristic that is part of one's innate identity. For all of Rev. Haggard's life he made the correct and acceptable choices. He devoted his life to the ministry and his church. He became a husband and a father. Yet all the while he knew within his heart that he was living a lie. He knew that he was attracted to men. This had to be excruciatingly painful and confusing to him, for it went against everything he was taught to believe. Probably as time went by, Pastor Haggard grew to hate himself more and more. He regarded his personal nature as being unnatural and sinful. He taught his congregation that sexual behavior was a matter of choice and yet he knew from personal experience that he continued to have feelings and attractions that he had no control over. Instead of simply being honest and admitting who he was, the Rev. sought out clandestine encounters to fulfill his physical desires and needs. He probably felt extremely guilty afterwards (and during) and thus became more and more vocal in his public opposition to homosexuality. He may have felt that he was a vile hypocrite and horrible sinner yet he did not know how to make the attractions and urges go away.

[fritzalvarez]

All of these people probably eat bacon and shrimp and get near a woman during her period, all of which are prohibited by the same set of laws they claim prohibit homosexuality. Let's have an oversight committee for the bacon eaters and try to break them of their sin. What a bunch of *** this all is. It is selective enforcement and pure prejudice. Read
http://heathenmiddle.com

[onepost]

Evolution is a theory not a fact. Intelligent design is an idea, not a theory. Theory implies science. Science is not based on faith. Faith in religion precedes the logic of I.D., therefore it is not a theory, but rationalization of religious doctrine. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT! Religion is great but so is science and people should stop invading that realm. You don%u2019t have to believe in evolution. There are many different ways to think about evolution and creation and God. The ideas are compatible. Still, believing in one and not the other is fine, but they are and should be separate. Using religion to compete with science is wrong - it slanders the beauty of both. If you find beauty in religion, develop your faith, but don't discount science that you cannot understand, and therefore see (wrongly) as competing ideology. Likewise, science does not compete with religion. Those who mock religion show great ignorance. They are two ways of approaching the same thing. I approach it with music. I spend energy developing my musical craft and do not waste it discounting other crafts simply because I don't understand them. Beauty is universal - feel free to call God (or not). If one finds beauty in a religion, science, music, farming or just being a good person, encourage it! ESPECIALLY if it comes in a form you don't understand. It doesn't have to be for you. Beauty can be found everywhere. Share with each other, but don't try to correct each other. None of us are God.

[hsmagst]

To Bigdmm: Actually, I've enjoyed it....and I'm really not interested in trying to change your mind or anyones mind.....Faith is a personal thing and I do believe the Bible reference that nobody is called to God unless God wants it. And to be truthfull, up until about 10 years ago, I believed just as you do.

[bigdmm-2009]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

However, probability is not exactly in your corner when it comes to the likely hood of Intelligent Design. It confuses me how you can put that kind of emphasis on statistics to refute Evolution, but ignore the same argument against Intelligent Design. But I assume that's where faith comes in, and as you have guess (from me hitting you over the head with it) I'm somewhat of an atheist (actually I consider myself more of a Humanist, http://www.americanhumanist.org/index.html).

But I must bring our discussion to a close.....I have 4 kids to get to bed...and I need a tea :-)

Thanks for the mental workout :-)

[hsmagst]

to Bigdmm: And I think I'm going to have to disagree with your idea that there is no basis for Intelligent design. Even if we just were to break it down to simple mathematical statistics, the probabilities are just way too great that life formed randomly and evolved into mankind. But until there is a judgement day, I'm going to choose to believe in God and his plan for mankind. And no, its not blind faith on my part....but thats another story.

[bigdmm-2009]

I stand corrected.

I only looked at the posts that were visible on the first page.

But I did mention that I only looked at the last few posts. Remember we've been "discussing" this for at least the last four hours ;-)

[hsmagst]

To Bigdmm: You obviously didn't read back far enough....below is the post.

To Bigdmm: I think you are very wrong when you say "Evolution and Creationism CANNOT co-exist". There is nothing in either that says that a creator could not have created existance and then let things take their course. We see samples of evolution all the time in existing lifeforms due to environmental influences. If you do enough reading you will see the even Darwin alluded to a creator and there are a lot of scientists that believe that the 2 ideas are not incompatable.

[bigdmm-2009]

Also, I must have missed where you said "it goes on due to environmental influences." I've looked at the last few posts from you and it doesn't say this. What your post says is:

"If your theory a is true, why don't we continue to see it happening today.....if its true, we should, given the advances in scientific study, be able to find examples of it going on today......and from what I read, we can't......all we can do is post theories, most of which are statistically unproveable."

I believe I gave you the example you asked for, i.e. development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.