Dick Dewert Defrocked

[newbie]

Dick Dewert resigned his post as one of Canada's leading evangelists, to follow in the footsteps of Bakker, Swaggart, and Haggard. Let the "he's only human" spin begin.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...25-a969d05b4d38

[guyser]

Never heard of him.

But frankly I am shocked. A religious guy, sermonizing weekly, well versed in the Bible, has a wife, said his vows.....and goes and has an affair.

Shocked I am. Does this happen.............much?

[betsy]

Dick Dewert resigned his post as one of Canada's leading evangelists, to follow in the footsteps of Bakker, Swaggart, and Haggard. Let the "he's only human" spin begin.

What are you saying?

That he's not human?

That humans don't sin?

[betsy]

CALGARY - The founder of Canada's first national Christian television network has resigned after admitting to an "extra-marital relationship."

Dick Dewert started the network in Lethbridge in 1995 with his wife, Joan, who has also resigned to "stand with her husband," a news release issued from the Miracle Channel said.

"We do not condone his behaviour," said Ray Block, who has been named CEO to replace Dewert.

This behaviour does not represent our stand on morality issues. His resignation was the right thing for him to do."

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...25-a969d05b4d38

*****************

Well, when I read the title of this topic, I had the impression that this guy was stripped of his robe and kicked out. The way that word "DEFROCKED" was used was kinda misleading. But actually, this man (never heard of him or this particular ministry btw), resigned.

The first few lines of the article reveal a lot of positive things....adhering to Christian belief.

He admitted to adultery.

He resigned, doing the right thing for the ministry and for himself.

His wife, the human who was most grievously hurt in this affair, stood by him. This indicate forgiveness. Any woman who got cheated on would most probably agree that forgiveness is hard to dole out in this matter, let alone standing by the man who betrayed you.

The CEO stressed that this behaviour is not condoned.

That the man sinned proved only one thing: he succumbed to temptation.

Politicians and even Prime Minister get caught in corruptions and scandals...and yet wouldn't have the decency to voluntarily resign.

What's the big deal about this issue then?

[cybercoma]

Religion is the foundation of morals, according to theists, and this religious leader clearly has none.

That's the big deal.

[betsy]

Religion is the foundation of morals, according to theists, and this religious leader clearly has none.

That's the big deal.

I'm busy right now. I'll deal with you later.

[M.Dancer]

Religion is the foundation of morals, according to theists, and this religious leader clearly has none.

That's the big deal.

None? So he also a man on the edge of murder? Theft, Purgery?....

Is atheism the foundation of foolish hyperbole?

[newbie]

The first few lines of the article reveal a lot of positive things....adhering to Christian belief.

He admitted to adultery.

He resigned, doing the right thing for the ministry and for himself.

It was a play on words Betsy. And as far as the "human" thing, most Christians use the "he's only human" line when one of their leaders exhibits a moral transgression. These heads of the church are held to a higher standard, particularly when they preach against the very impropriety they engage in.

[betsy]

Religion is the foundation of morals, according to theists, and this religious leader clearly has none.

That's the big deal.

Actually, I consider Cybercoma a gift from God.

You effectively articulate the shallowness of the liberal atheist secularist society we live in. You can't seem to differentiate between a human being who is contrite and realizes the error of his ways. You prefer the sinner who goes crying, kicking and screaming to his judgement, only after he's been exposed beyond any possibility of lying his way out of it. Sounds like Jean Chretien to me.

[betsy]

The first few lines of the article reveal a lot of positive things....adhering to Christian belief.

He admitted to adultery.

He resigned, doing the right thing for the ministry and for himself.

It was a play on words Betsy. And as far as the "human" thing, most Christians use the "he's only human" line when one of their leaders exhibits a moral transgression. These heads of the church are held to a higher standard, particularly when they preach against the very impropriety they engage in.

The heads of the church are held to a higher [moral] standard? By whom? In fact in the eyes of a knowlegeable, and compassionate Christian, our leaders are held to exactly the same standard as all others. It is a modern secularist's view that allows for variable moral "standards" - and a variable standard is no standard at all (but how often doesn't THAT obvious truth need repeating?) Furthermore, it's not that some Christians - and some others as well - might hold leaders to a higher standard that's important - some Christians, like everyone, are somewhat judgemental sometimes, and some Christians, like many others, are judgemental most of the time (do I sound like Lincoln LOL) The point is that the offending leader is judged by God, and in these matters, only God's opinion is significant. And I would guess that His standard for that offending priest would be the same as for you or me. But I doubt that He'll share "His decision" with us. To put it simply, who are you to judge. Worry about your own sins, and since you don't believe in God (forgive me, but that's the impression I've got), you're on your own with your improprieties.

You speak scornfully of that poor priest's resignation, contriteness and apologies. It would be a far better world, in my opinion, if we could all as readily admit that we blew it and sincerely try to get things back together.

Ironically, at once, liberal "thinkers" dump the very idea of a standard of morality, and then attempt to judge others based on that other's commitments. The arrogance of ignorance - the legacy of your original post-modern leader and philosopher - right up there with John Lennon, John Ralston Saul, and Oprey Winfry - P. E. Trudeau!!

BTW, what do you mean "play on words"? It wasn't a play on words by any stretch. It was just a dumb cliche you thought might fit in here.

[newbie]

Besty, betsy, now who's angry? Are you saying the Pope isn't held to any higher standards than a walk-in Christian? If so, why preach then? These faulty leaders are major hypocrites and fall back on "they'll forgive me" when they falter. As for judgement (you seem to have more than enough to go around), I'll judge hyprcrisy anytime I see it. I do not know Dick Dewert, but his "sin" is to be judged. My play on words was just that - to mean a preacher out of the pulpit. Man, you do take things a little too literal.

[betsy]

Besty, betsy, now who's angry? Are you saying the Pope isn't held to any higher standards than a walk-in Christian? If so, why preach then? These faulty leaders are major hypocrites and fall back on "they'll forgive me" when they falter. As for judgement (you seem to have more than enough to go around), I'll judge hyprcrisy anytime I see it. I do not know Dick Dewert, but his "sin" is to be judged. My play on words was just that - to mean a preacher out of the pulpit. Man, you do take things a little too literal.

First of all, no one is angry here. A little frustrated, maybe.

"his sin is to be judged." Never mind "I'll judge". That's the whole issue here. You're in no position to judge....unless of course you're perfect. We definitely won't say a perfect what.

And no, the Pope is not held to a higher standard by anyone who counts in this issue.

I thought I made it very clear that it's not your opinion that matters here. Don't imagine I'm wrong about that....I'm not.

You're just another one of us. In the eyes of God.

Nay-saying does not an argument make. You're wrong and I'm right. It's just that simple. No argument.

Your argument has no merit, either logically or philosophically. Let alone, religiously.

[newbie]

Besty, betsy, now who's angry? Are you saying the Pope isn't held to any higher standards than a walk-in Christian? If so, why preach then? These faulty leaders are major hypocrites and fall back on "they'll forgive me" when they falter. As for judgement (you seem to have more than enough to go around), I'll judge hyprcrisy anytime I see it. I do not know Dick Dewert, but his "sin" is to be judged. My play on words was just that - to mean a preacher out of the pulpit. Man, you do take things a little too literal.

First of all, no one is angry here. A little frustrated, maybe.

Never mind to be judged. By whom?

And no, the Pope is not held to a higher standard by anyone who counts in this issue.

I thought I made it very clear that it's not your opinion that matters here. Don't imagine I'm wrong about that....I'm not.

You're just another one of us. In the eyes of God.

Nay-saying does not an argument make. You're wrong and I'm right. It's just that simple. No argument.

Your argument has no merit, either logically or philosophically. Let alone, religiously.

You gotta be kidding. "You're wrong and I'm right."? Methinks you've been on the playground too long. So if the Pope isn't held to a higher standard, then why bother listening or showing up at church. Don't you Christian types like to have a minister/preacher you can feel is at least following the word of God? But in your books, I guess it obviously doesn't matter.

edited: And another thing, thoughts like yours fostered the kind of behaviour that caused irreversible shame, guilt and pain on thousands of abused boys and girls who thought their Priest was next to God.

[betsy]

You gotta be kidding. "You're wrong and I'm right."? Methinks you've been on the playground too long. So if the Pope isn't held to a higher standard, then why bother listening or showing up at church. Don't you Christian types like to have a minister/preacher you can feel is at least following the word of God? But in your books, I guess it obviously doesn't matter.

Yoo-hoo. You really don't get it.

The standard is judged not by me....but by somebody Else. The judgement we're talking about isn't his preaching. It's his behaviour. I can decide whether the head of the United Church of Canada is preaching the Word of God when he denies the divinity of Christ. I can make the decision to either stay or leave if I'd had the misfortune of being part of that community, I'd have to deal with his heresy. But it's not my place to judge his behaviour (unless you mean by "judge", deciding whether I agree with him or not) or the consequences of his behaviour.

[newbie]

The standard is judged not by me....but by somebody Else. The judgement we're talking about isn't his preaching. It's his behaviour. I can decide whether the head of the United Church of Canada is preaching the Word of God when he denies the divinity of Christ. I can make the decision to either stay or leave if I'd had the misfortune of being part of that community, I'd have to deal with his heresy. But it's not my place to judge his behaviour (unless you mean by "judge", deciding whether I agree with him or not) or the consequences of his behaviour.

So in your world preaching the word is good enough. I take it then you would accept whole-heartedly a gay minister, or a divorced one, perhaps an ex-con? Hey, what about a Muslim convert?

[betsy]

The standard is judged not by me....but by somebody Else. The judgement we're talking about isn't his preaching. It's his behaviour. I can decide whether the head of the United Church of Canada is preaching the Word of God when he denies the divinity of Christ. I can make the decision to either stay or leave if I'd had the misfortune of being part of that community, I'd have to deal with his heresy. But it's not my place to judge his behaviour (unless you mean by "judge", deciding whether I agree with him or not) or the consequences of his behaviour.

So in your world preaching the word is good enough. I take it then you would accept whole-heartedly a gay minister, or a divorced one, perhaps an ex-con? Hey, what about a Muslim convert?

No, on the contrary just preaching the word is not good enough. You have to believe the word as well.

I would whole-heartedly accept a homosexual priest....as long as he is not a practicing homosexual. Being a homosexual is something that is built-in to some people. Clearly, if he isn't a homosexual, there would be no temptation to perform homosexual acts. It's only one who is tempted to commit sodomy or whatever else that would be required to resist the temptation.

I have an anecdote. The great English composer Benjamin Britten was openly homosexual, and confessed to someone that he had a strong desire for young boys. As far as the record shows, he never gave in to the temptation of molesting children. While I don't condone his homosexual behaviour, I admire him greatly for both his admission and his restraint.

As for a Muslim convert, why not? If he's a convert, he's a convert! He may be very eloquent, but God will know if his conversion is genuine. Let Him be the judge. And that's the point.

Newbie, will you read that highlighted quote again. We can decide whether we think his preaching is accurately portraying the Will of God. To the extent that it's his responsibility to lead Christ's children in the right direction, the more astute of his audience can take on some of the responsibility for those less perceptive. Assuming his teaching is sincere, we can only pray for quality leadership. His behaviour is what we're not in a position to judge. We leave that to God. If his preaching is in question as to its validity and sincerity, God will know....even if we in the audience don't. We'll have to deal with it.

Let Jesus speak. He can do it more articulately than anyone here.

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." And of course, none of us humans will qualify to throw that stone. And only God is without sin. He could decide whether stones should be thrown.

So Newbie, for us Christians to say "He's only human" is simply a paraphrase of the Word of God.

It is not a spin.

[newbie]

Betsy, Dunno if you read my edited post but I still have a problem with a pedophile priest preaching the "correct" word of God while abusing children, and being protected by a Bishop and other Priests. Can't help but judge a bit there.

[betsy]

edited: And another thing, thoughts like yours fostered the kind of behaviour that caused irreversible shame, guilt and pain on thousands of abused boys and girls who thought their Priest was next to God.

Drivel! Your rant is fueled by ignorance and anger!

Long ago,you mentioned in another thread that someone close to you had been molested by a priest. That's why I've asked you recently if you are angry....that it seems you are fueled by anger. I guess I'm not wrong.

Do you have a surrogate guilt or hate, because somebody you know was abused? You better learn to deal with it. It's fogging your judgement. Nobody, certainly not I, care whether you believe in God....but if you cannot carry on a rational discussion, you've got problems, no matter what world you inhabit.

[newbie]

Hmm, you're obviously not a Catholic betsy. The only ignorance and anger I"ve seen in this thread seem to be pouring out of your keyboard. But that's okay. I suggest getting it all out, and I"ll continue to cite hyprocricy wherever I see it.

[betsy]

Hmm, you're obviously not a Catholic betsy. The only ignorance and anger I"ve seen in this thread seem to be pouring out of your keyboard. But that's okay. I suggest getting it all out, and I"ll continue to cite hyprocricy wherever I see it.

So what's this, "you're obviously not a Catholic." That's irrelevant!

In this case, where's the hypocrisy?? Didn't this man admit to his sin? Didn't he resign from being a Minister? Didn't the CEO reiterated that this behaviour is not condoned? You don't make any sense at all!

Just read what you've written. This is not rational.

I do not know Dick Dewert, but his "sin" is to be judged.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....topic=9051&st=0

And yes, I'll attack Christianity whenver I see Benny Hinns or Pat Robertson spew their vile and hatred and self prophecy to anyone with a checkbook or VISA. Same goes with those tele-evangival shows. Just shows you how gullible and weak some people are.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....opic=8917&st=15

edited: And another thing, thoughts like yours fostered the kind of behaviour that caused irreversible shame, guilt and pain on thousands of abused boys and girls who thought their Priest was next to God.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....opic=9051&st=15

This sounds like the rantings of a mad person.

[newbie]

I was warned not to feed the trolls. Should have listened.

[betsy]

I was warned not to feed the trolls. Should have listened

Now, that's rational. You really shouldn't feed the trolls, dearie. Now go to sleep.

[cybercoma]

Actually, I consider Cybercoma a gift from God.

You effectively articulate the shallowness of the liberal atheist secularist society we live in. You can't seem to differentiate between a human being who is contrite and realizes the error of his ways. You prefer the sinner who goes crying, kicking and screaming to his judgement, only after he's been exposed beyond any possibility of lying his way out of it. Sounds like Jean Chretien to me.

What the hell are you on about?

You asked what the big deal is and I explained to you that the big deal is that religion is supposed to be the model of morality and this RELIGIOUS LEADER showed a serious error in his moral judgment.

Do you not consider it immoral to betray the trust of your spouse? I know I do. And I'm fairly certain, most spouses would agree.

The rest of your post about liberal 'this' and Jean Chretien 'that' is complete tripe. All you're doing is trying to call me shallow an unintelligent, simply because I do not believe in your preferred superstitions.

[cybercoma]

This is why religious moderates are just as dangerous as fanatics. They uphold this superstitious belief that people will be 'judged' in the afterlife by a higher power (without being able to povide any evidence for its existece) and that any "moral transgressions" here are not for us to judge. When priests were fondling little boys, I'm sure this is the idea several catholics had. "My that's terrible, but it is not for me to judge, it's for the Lord." It's the same deference to a higher power when the church oppresses women and berates homosexuality. It's that same, "let God sort it out" idea that allows wars, murder and torture because of religion to continue.

[betsy]

Actually, I consider Cybercoma a gift from God.

You effectively articulate the shallowness of the liberal atheist secularist society we live in. You can't seem to differentiate between a human being who is contrite and realizes the error of his ways. You prefer the sinner who goes crying, kicking and screaming to his judgement, only after he's been exposed beyond any possibility of lying his way out of it. Sounds like Jean Chretien to me.

What the hell are you on about?

You asked what the big deal is and I explained to you that the big deal is that religion is supposed to be the model of morality and this RELIGIOUS LEADER showed a serious error in his moral judgment.

Do you not consider it immoral to betray the trust of your spouse? I know I do. And I'm fairly certain, most spouses would agree.

The rest of your post about liberal 'this' and Jean Chretien 'that' is complete tripe. All you're doing is trying to call me shallow an unintelligent, simply because I do not believe in your preferred superstitions.

Oh suddenly feeling a little self-righteous, are we?

The usual version from atheists is "oh I'm very moral and I don't need religion!"

Suddenly religion is the "foundation of morals."

Well you got it wrong both ways.

You do need religion for your morals. If you live in a western society, it IS Judeo-Christian morality that's the basis for your moral standard, assuming you have one. (I'm not saying that to imply you are shallow OR unintelligent, but there is a strong possibility that you follow the modern liberal tendency to adhere to a so-called moral relativism - which simply put means that each person, the self, can decide for himself what moral behaviour he will follow in any particular situation - hardly a "standard" at all). Anyway, how you acquired whatever morality you have is not known to me. Maybe you went to church and learned from a preacher (who may or may not have had a thing for choirboys, or other men's wives); maybe you read it in religious studies at school; or maybe you picked it up from the behaviour of others. Nor do I have any idea as to the quality of your morality, but I do know it's quality depends on its source.

But religion is not the FOUNDATION of morality. The Word of God is the foundation of morality, even an atheist's, and the basis of our moral standard. Unless you believe that the priest is an infallible representative of God, why do you expect him to be without sin. Like I said, "You can't seem to differentiate between a human being who is contrite and realizes the error of his ways..." and someone who would suggest that what he did was alright and he owes no contrition to anyone. Just because you "explained" to me "that the big deal is that religion is supposed to be the model of morality..." doesn't make it so. I don't accept that "explanation".

Yes "this RELIGIOUS LEADER showed a serious error in his moral judgment". Should we burn him at the stake? And what is the nonsense about whether I consider adultery a sin? Do you doubt that I do? Then you not only didn't read this post, you haven't been reading, or at least understanding, my position all along.

One need not be too deep to recognise the reference to John Chretien as a reference to his first denying that adscam existed, then denying that he had anything to do with it, then admitting that he did have things to do with it, then denying that there was anything wrong with it. This was not meant to imply that it had anything to do with religion, but it did have a undeniable parallel to this religious LEADERSHIP and the willingness, or not, to accept responsibility. One leader admitted that he was wrong, the other subbornly denied it. Who's the best leader? There's only one answer.