Tom's Views

Consider the TV ministries; the   PTL Ministries   organization specifically; the one with Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker  at the helm. Now the general church-going population believes that preachers should live modestly, owning only what’s necessary to live and serve the Lord. But  Jim Bakker   and his wife  Tammy Faye Bakker Messner   exceeded this minimal-living expectation by far and brought  folly  not only to themselves, but to PTL Ministries as well. Clearly, based on their obviously conspicuous consumption,  the Bakkers  weren’t fulfilled solely within the confines of upstanding minister practices. Tammy Faye Bakker with her lavish jewels and clothes, and Jim Bakker in his expensive suits and cars so obviously displayed. They worshiped the material trappings of PTL Ministries more than God himself.

While Jim Bakker may have been maximally fulfilled as a preacher, the fact remains that he cheated! He by no means did without.  Many more preachers cheat too, that we don’t hear about.  They lead the public to believe that they’ve risen above the carnal trappings of humanity when in fact they’re secretly indulging in them.  But  Bakker was simply of high enough profile that he eventually could not keep this secret and evade getting caught.

Only the extreme upper crust of the entire sect of preachers could be truly virtuous, achieving maximal fulfillment exclusively through their unselfish and relentless dedication to God and service. But PTL Ministries though they appeared to be one such virtuous outlet, turned out to be anything but. 

Mother Teresa though, was apparently one such person (of a very small few). Certainly, she surpassed   the Bakkers   and maybe even  Christ  himself in this regard. It’s hard to find media reports that diminish her, but very easy to find them against  Christ  as well as   Jim Bakker  and his wife Tammy Faye Bakker Messner.

Word-of-mouth has high data distortion rates as the facts are passed from one person to the next. Thus, the information we have concerning these so-called heroes like Jim Bakker was probably exaggerated, downplayed, and anything else that happens to it when one person relates it to another, who then passes it to another, who then passes it to yet another.  Thus, we probably do not know the whole story on these dubious leaders.  As I understand human propensity, I believe that accounts of   the Bakkers’  lives were likely white-washed, to bolster their effectiveness as spiritual icons, with most of their shortcomings omitted from the record.  Certainly, this occurred with PTL Ministries in its heyday. 

But my, it’s amazing how the mighty have fallen.  Jim Bakker was eventually jailed for accounting fraud and   Tammy Faye Bakker   lived out the rest of her life in virtual disgrace.  This is proof positive that even a most polished-looking preacher such as evangelist  Jim Bakker is little less subject to the temptations afforded power and money, than any of the rest of us.  Preachers aren’t so much better than the rest of us after all, no matter what they or their supporters tell you.

Tom Hesley

References

• Jesus Christ   on Wikipedia
• Jim Bakker   on Wikipedia
• Mother Teresa   on Wikipedia
• Tammy Faye Bakker Messner   on Wikipedia

Some people can indeed live as happily as can be without love relationships; if that’s what they truly wish to do. But that’s not the case for most of us, and apparently neither for many   celibate priests   either.  It appears that scores of celibate priests and nuns alike are not completely fulfilled sexually while maintaining their celibacy. Consider the years of sexual misconduct in the Catholic Church that is now being uncovered around the country, and who knows what goes on in the convents and parsonages after hours? I think these people are generally less devout than appearances imply. So even the most devout and practiced Christians have trouble   living happily without love.

Not that I’m faulting the celibate priests for failing to live happily without love. After all, I’d expect to see many break their vows (sexual and otherwise) because in making those vows, they’ve pitted themselves squarely against primal human urges by ignoring   Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. While we cannot know for sure if someone is truly happy, their actions provide potent clues as to their state of mind. The actions of celibate priests up to now suggest that they’re wanting sexually and   dangerously lusting for love;   particularly since they seek innocently trusting children for sinful fun in the confessional.

I’d argue that this rampant child abuse stems from neglected level three needs as described in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and suggests that celibate priests do not really live happily without love at all. After so much denying of the basic carnal needs, something’s got to give. And it often does in the form of deviant sexual behaviors by these celibate but human priests, nuns, and clergy.  Ignoring or vilifying our sexual urges, as the Christian faith seems to do, has created predator-like and thus, dangerous and sexually deviant behaviors in the church.  Perhaps it’s not wise to ignore the human need for love and affection therefore, and even more foolhardy to trust that a celibate priest has.

The great spiritual leaders on the whole, were probably less honorable than as portrayed in today’s romanticized books, simply because the temptations of the flesh are just too strong for all but the very few to overcome, without gratifying them. The thirst they produce is quite powerful and so fundamental to human proliferation that it gets incorporated into nearly every well-functioning human. So I’m skeptical of those celibate priests who claim to have never succumbed to the mating instinct, who carry the burdens of such denial, yet who boast that they’re maximally fulfilled and indeed live happily without love. It happens, yes. But truly happy and fulfilled lives without love are extremely rare.

Besides, in the days of the Buddha and Christ, in those times devoid of mass media, keeping secrets was much easier, with far fewer reporters and paparazzi flitting around. Even if one discovered incriminating information, exposing and substantiating it proved challenging. No film, no Internet, no radio, no television, no telephone, no fingerprints, no DNA. Back then, you only had word-of-mouth to inform the masses.  So it was much easier then to hide one’s sexual activities.  It was much easier to fool the public into thinking that you had managed to live happily without love when in fact, you were getting lots of hidden love.

Did you ever wonder why monks and celibate priests spend so much time meditating, praying, and tending to the church? True, there’s much to do and learn for the aspiring virtuous priest. But all these devotional hours also serve to quell the lust for love by keeping the priest from books, movies, and other influences that might inspire more fantasies or leave him more wanting. While he may remain abstinent however, he apparently does not completely banish the lust from his heart.

The priest, as evidenced by how many of them just can’t seem to keep their hands to themselves, cannot be maximally fulfilled with such questions outstanding. As the courageous man contends effectively with fear, so too does the esteemed priest contend with temptation. It’s the celibate priest’s contention with temptation that makes him great, not his ability to eliminate that temptation, though I would trust very few to fully live up to the ideal of celibacy. Living happily without love is virtually impossible.  So I doubt anyone who claims to be doing it.  The church needs to recognize just how powerful the need for carnal love is, and abolish the vows of celibacy to reduce the danger of child abuse coming upon thos innocent, church-going children.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Can Mindfulness Meditation Therapy Cure Love Lust?
• Church Ignores Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs
• Effects Of Unrequited Love Needs
• Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs
• More Than Just God To Live For
• Only True Love Truly Cures True Love Desire
• We Don’t Live Happily Without Love
• Why Doubt Religious Faith?

References

• Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs   definition on Wikipedia

It takes more than just effort to outperform our parents, though many compliment themselves for their sheer effort and tenacity that they say was solely responsible for their higher success.  Then, they blame those who do not outperform their parents for being too lazy and not putting forth enough effort.  However, while many achieve in life roughly what their parents did, this does not necessarily mean that they’re lazy.  Now it’s clear that in recent generations especially, more children than not manage to achieve higher living standards than did their parents; greater education, more wealth, better health care, safer neighborhoods, more opportunities, and so on.  So an expectation has grown up that anyone who does not outperform his parents by improving upon their lifestyles, is simply lazy and thus, flawed.

Certainly, a willingness to try is needed to outperform our parents. But like the flour in a chocolate cake (which is not the only ingredient necessary for creating a great-tasting cake by the way), voluntary effort is not the only component in the cake of success. We must also consider those inborn and nurtured traits like talent, ambition, aptitude, nutrition, and so many other qualities that impact the amount of effort required to succeed.  What we are born with and born into greatly impacts the amount of effort we must exert subsequently in order to outperform our parents economically and socially.

Thus, we should be careful when judging people stuck in their traditional castes, because they’re likely fighting and succumbing to forces that we can not see. People all-too-quickly dismiss a person’s fatalism or resignation to his current life standard, as a simple unwillingness to pull himself up by his bootstraps and work hard to outperform his parents. True, some types would benefit from some good old fashioned tough love and forced discipline. But others have good reasons for their resignation and “laziness,” such as the profoundly disabled or the neglected.  We could enhance our own compassion for them by remembering that willful sloth (a voluntary choice to be lazy) is but a small part of all the apathy out there. Some people because of how they were raised, are just not cut out to achieve more greatness than their parents did.  The forces that converged upon them in their lives do not allow it.

Finally, why are so many so opposed to acquiescing to more powerful forces than their own wills? I suppose that the succumbing to tradition indeed sounds a lot like God’s followers yielding their destinies to Him and his plan without question. I agree that this superstition is not healthy for a society. A truly enlightened culture would have no need to do it, and I regret that I won’t live long enough to see our society reach a total freedom from religion.  Yet many strong religious believers refuse to acknowledge the deep impact of child rearing in how much a child is able to outperform his parents.  They believe in an unseen God, yet downplay these objectively measurable forces.  Though the existence of God in my view has not been proven, there earthly forces have been.  In fact, these can be just as godly in power and scope, in determining how far we can outperform our parents.

Our challenge as humans is to discern which success limiters out of the complete set of forces, are mere phantoms, which are truly formidable yet beatable, and finally, which ones are simply too strong to overcome at all. A philosopher from antiquity – I don’t remember his name – said, essentially, that we need a healthy supply of   resignation   during life’s journey. Otherwise, we overestimate our capabilities, struggle to achieve excessively lofty goals, and therefore spend too much time disappointed. People need to know when it’s time to give up, and in order to know that, they must realize that, contrary to the moral of that   Little Engine That Could   story, quitting a particular pursuit is very often the best course of action.  For more discussion on this point, please see my   We Cannot Achieve Just Anything We Want   post.

Back to the original discussion about people outperforming their parents: Some folks fail to outperform those from previous generations because of factors beyond their control.  Thus, acrimoniously judging them is certainly not good, as it blames them for that which they cannot have power over, and wrongfully assumes that they can be in charge of things that they really cannot.  The blame in this case is therefore misplaced.  We need to stop this sort of misdirected blaming to improve our abilities at getting along with and accepting each other.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Accepting Limitations
• Are Self-Starters Privileged
• Book Of Job Lesson: Accept Your Plight
• Case For Tradition
• Fighting Fate To Get Rich
• Free Will, Yes, But Determinism Too!
• Hereditary Baggage
• If You Think You Can
• On Our Parents Defining Our Destiny
• Rising Above One’s Raising
• The Bonds Of Manifest Destiny
• We Cannot Achieve Just ANYTHING We Want