Several times in this thread you have stated that in a pm to you I denied having had an affair. I did not. However, what I wrote to you may have been misleading. Here is what I said, in part:
Quote:
I wonder though, why would you publicly accuse me of being a drunk? What was the motivation? Who was a witness to this accusation? And you seem to be accusing me of having used the old FFF as a way to troll for women? Odd. Where would you get that? With whom, exactly, did I allegedly have an affair? Can you name the woman?
Let's be clear. I left the ministry. I left it voluntarily. I left it intact. The church I was a pastor of when I resigned is healthy and active with many of the same members who still love and appreciate me. I know this because I live in the same community and see them regularly on the streets and in the stores. Even some of my old "enemies" if you could call them such, people with whom I had doctrinal differences will stop and wave and wish me well. I am no saint, trust me. Marty, I don't even go to church very much. Mostly because I don't care. That's not an excuse, btw, that's an explanation. I am also certain it is only in the short-term for the God who would and will not forsake me will see to it that I do not forsake him.
In the meantime I'm not sure what your thinking is concerning my "reappearance" on the board. Was I too brash? Probably. I usually am. But I can tell you I'm not going to be a regular. I consider it a waste of time. I am going to blog again and I'm not sure what your veiled threat about that was. I think I made it clear and make it clear on the blog itself that the new blog will be nothing at all like my old ones. I merely reappeared at the FFF for the purpose of steering a little traffic my way.
So lets' make a list:
1) I'm not a pastor nor do I wish to be one.
2) I'm not gunning for Bob Gray or LBT or any of his toadies
3) I'm not looking to be anyone's spiritual mentor.
4) I'm not a fundamentalist in any sense in which you would probably use the term nor do I want anything to do with the movement.
5) I am looking to write, think, pass time, educate--more about ideology than about theology, though the two are inexorably linked.
So I'm not trying to sneak back in or re-establish myself as anything--but a blogger. And last I checked the first amendment to the constitution, that's ok.
James T. Spurgeon
|
I should have been more clear. I
did have an on-line affair with a married woman. Saying more than that would, I think, reveal more about her than is necessary and as she has made attempts to repent and make amends and go on with her life I don't see how giving her away is going to do anything beyond making her infamous--something neither she nor her husband need or want.
While we're clearing the air . . .
I have never had a problem with alcohol. I am building a house and until it is done, and it seems like it will never get done, I am doing like a lot of other people do when they buy property and build a house, I am living in the RV parked next to the new construction. Somehow "living in a trailer" makes the whole thing seem more seedy, doesn't it? I did not leave my wife and kids for another woman. My separation was a l-o-n-g time coming and happened independently of the "affair." I never "left" my children. I still see them nearly every day and daresay I have a better relationship with them than a lot of at-home dads do. That's not to say that what I have is good enough or that it is as good as living there. It isn't. But it is not like I abandoned them.
Also, I think it needs to be said that in any marriage which ends in divorce there are two sides, two perspectives. It would be easy to just think that I had an affair and that's why my marriage is over. That is simply not the case. As well-known people who tried to intervene at the time could attest to, I had plenty of opportunity to "reconcile" or attempt to "reconcile" for whatever that's worth. I chose not to and I think there was wisdom, much wisdom behind my choice. I sued for divorce. I ended the marriage. It was not for another woman. It was for a multiplicity of reasons for which I feel justified and I don't lose sleep over it at night. It would be too easy for me to dump on my ex- here by going into details, but again, there are other lives involved who do not need the notoriety, not the least of which are my four children and their mother.
Oh, and one day I will re-marry and it won't be to the woman for whom I supposedly left my wife and kids.
Frankly, I don't know why I've gone into this much detail tonight. To be honest, I don't know that I owed anyone this much, but here you have it.
I do think I have a future and I do think I still have something to say and I do think I need to be writing both for the aforementioned reason and also because I need the practice. If you are interested in Christian apologetics, or how our theology ties in with our ideology, or perhaps some political punditry, written from a layman's perspective in what will hopefully be an entertaining fashion on an entertaining blog, then come read. If not, don't. And if it's not worth reading, no one will read it. Right?
As for having to have the moral ground to criticize another pastor, that's true to a point and that's why I no longer do so. On the other hand, truth is truth no matter who the messenger is--the messenger either has substance or he does not. Take that for what it's worth, I'll not argue it.
BTW - thanks, Ransom, for the back-handed compliment to my writing.
Oh, and the book? That was not a criticism. That was a record. The record cannot be retroactively changed.
Cheers,
James