Frumpiness leads tofaggotry - The relationship is clear.
From there:
Sweet Jeebus! The eye of Mordor is a giant flaming vagina! Sitting on top of a giant penis-shaped tower!
They managed to make that more sissified?!?
So what does Driscoll mean by this??
Is he recommending that these sinful urges be kept in the family, so to speak? “Hey, come on up to my place and share some accountability.” :dubious:
Why am I suddenly reminded of “Saved.”
This is what happens when I avoid work; I end up posting to threads like this.
I’m probably not in tune with 90% of what the guy teaches, but it screamingly obvious that what he’s saying is the same thing prostitutes say: men go out looking because they can’t get what they want from the wife.
In the passage you quote the dude explicitly says that does not make it her fault … and yet that’s the way you chose to interpret it. Is simple honesty so hard?
“Accountability” means having someone(s) in your life who you can confess to and whom you have asked to keep an eye on your spiritual health. For Catholics and some other denominations, the hierarchy (theoretically) takes care of this. (e.g. Preists confess to Monsignors who confess to Bishops, etc.)
For most evangelicals, there is usually no direct supervison of pastors, so there is no formal system for this. Thus, pastors must take the initiative to find people who are NOT in your church who can keep an eye on you.
e.g. The pastor of First Baptist is not going to discuss his deepest, darkest secrets, his fears, his problems, etc. with his parishoners. Maybe he should, but he probably isn’t. But he can, and should, discuss them with someone … usually another pastor.
Did you read the rest of the link, though? Yes, Driscoll does concede that an unattractive or unresponsive wife is not literally responsible for her husband’s infidelity. But that concession sounds pretty grudging next to his repeated insistence on the importance of a pastor’s having a “beautiful” wife to protect him from temptation:
That last remark sounds a bit naive, btw; surely Haggard’s situation makes it quite clear that having an attractive wife and a lot of children doesn’t necessarily mean that a man is a faithful husband, or even a heterosexual one.
Who does the Pope confess to?
Actually, I already know that one or more priests are posted to the Vatican for the purpose of hearing the Pope’s confession on a regular basis. One of my high school teachers had this assignment for a year or so during the eighties.
Actually, he doesn’t say “it’s not her fault”; he says she’s not directly responsible for his choice, but she “doesn’t help” by allegedly creating an environment where, if she did what she “should”, he wouldn’t be as likely to make such a choice in the first place.
It’s laying the blame in a back-handed sort of way. “You know, it’s not your fault you got raped, but why were you walking alone at night?” “You know, it’s not your fault he killed himself, but couldn’t you have been more supportive?” “You know, it’s not your fault your kid’s a druggie, but maybe if you didn’t work so much…”
He’s absolving her and indicting her in the same breath. He’s an asshole.
Unless he expects his wife to suddenly sprout a penis, that’s probably true.
Which is exactly the way real marriages, and real families work; nobody’s perfect and everyone can find things they should have done differently.
When the wife of a workaholic husband has an affair, it’s her fault. At the same time the workaholic doesn’t have the right to act like his behavior had nothing to do with it. If a wife basically decides that she doesn’t want to put out ever again, she shouldn’t be shocked if he starts screwing around. (Not that we have any reason to think that this happened to Haggard.)
Whether you agree with that thinking or not, it is not the same thing as saying “it’s her fault.”
Exactly. We have no reason to believe this was applicable in Haggard’s case, so of all the different distractions, temptations, or mitigating factors that may have contributed to Haggard’s choice, to exclusively fixate on one that conveniently dovetails with his own sexist worldview is telling. It’s one thing for Mrs. Haggard to self-assess her relationship and come to some conclusion re: her role in all this, but for a third-party observer to suggest not only the possibility, but the likelihood of such an assumption (quite a leap) is completely different. You make it sound like an observation but it’s clearly more derogatory than that–it’s baldfaced innuendo based on nothing more than latent prejudice.
Very clever posting technique, Kaylasdad, but your answer was incorrect.
Catholic: Who do you confess your sins to?
Baptist: I only confess my sins to God. Who do you confess your sins to?
Catholic: A priest.
Baptist: But who does the priest confess his sins to?
Catholic: A bishop.
Baptist: Who does the bishop confess his sins to?
Catholic: A cardinal.
Baptist: Who does the cardinal confess his sins to?
Catholic: The Pope.
Baptist: Okay, who does the Pope confess his sins to?
Catholic: God.
Baptist: Ah … So the Pope is Baptist?
His worldview may or may not be sexist – I won’t argue it – but he was not discussing their case. He suggests nothing whatsoever about this case in particular. The passages you are citing are offered as “practical suggestions for fellow Christian leaders, especially young men;” and indeed every other item on the list is something the (male) Pastor needs to do or not do to (putatively) avoid becoming a Haggard.
He makes a point of saying that
The idea that he was targeting Haggard’s wife is misrepresentation.
Okay, this post cracked me up, but what, no “Z” snaps?! Sorry, points deducted. 
No, no no.
I quite distinctly heard Haggard say “All the studies show that evangelicals have the best sex lives” in a film clip somewhere.
Ex-Christian checking in here:
As somebody quoted: A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.
When I was a Christian - mind you, I was single at the time - they seemed to have no room for sexuality. At all. At least single people were expected to be simply asexual, and the singles groups were always run by married couples who had long since forgotten what it was like to not only never have sex, but to be compelled by circumstances and endless Sunday sermons about purity, to perceive one’s own desires as sinful, wrong, and to be expunged.
Christian churches I have known do NOT teach sexual openness, frankness, availability, experimentation, or (for that matter) even enjoyment. Just…submission for women. Obedience, you know. Yes, dear.
If this woman has “failed” to be “sexy enough” or to meet the poetical standards in the Song of Songs, it’s probably because her church has taught her to be invisible, to downplay her sexuality, to be modest, to submit. Oh yeah. Who runs her church? Right.
Actually, it isn’t.
…and I would agree with this 100%. And I do.
Eh, there’s all types of Christian churches. And some of them are only “Christian” churches, really. The ones you had known seem rather dire – and may be in line with Haggard’s Crystal Palace of Christian Fabulousity – but there’s any number of other churches with far healthier attitudes toward sexuality. (although even then most would probably encourage sex only for “committed relationships”)
It’s rather obvious that Haggard was one fucked up dude. And all the media ministers rushing to his aid are looking like unwitting stars in a Borat sketch. As a bit of juicy shaudenfreude, it’s divine. But it’s not something I’ll be losing my religion over.