‘Twas the Night Before Christmas

and all through the house,
the pastor was thieving,
not at all like a mouse…

File this tale in a folder labeled “Truth is Stranger than Fiction” and cross-reference it with folders labeled “Darwin Award Grand Prize Winner” and “Idiot.” Maybe you should start a file called “Greed” too. Talking Points Memo reports that a pastor was arrested while robbing the home of a church member.

On Christmas Eve.

Silent Night, indeed.

But, not silent enough. I don’t know whether the sound of breaking glass prompted a neighbor to call the police, or the neighbor just happened to glance out her his window and spy the pastor loading a vehicle with “fur coats, designer purses and electronics.” Shame, shame, shame Pastor McGriff! You, of all people, should know that theft is a violation of the 8th commandment, and one of the seven cardinal sins. As far as I know, being an idiot is not a sin, which is a good thing for Pastor McGriff because her IQ appears to be lower than dirt.

At the time of her arrest, Pastor McGriff told the police that “a friend had sent her to pick up her coats and that her arm was injured because she could not find a key under the doormat and had to break in through the window.” When the police tried to confirm this story with the home owner, they were told that “she had not given anyone permission to go into her house or take her property.” Shame, shame, shame, Pastor McGriff! Lying is a violation of the 9th commandment (but, on the plus side, not a cardinal sin).

So far, the pastor’s idiocy count includes:

• breaking into someone’s home
• injuring oneself while breaking into someone’s home
• stealing someone’s shit
• lying to the police about stealing someone’s shit

Add to that list the facts that, afterward,

• the pastor gave a recorded interview to news reporters
• she changed her story

I don’t know what possessed the pastor to do these things. Maybe she realized – after the police called the home owner and got an account that contradicted the pastor’s story – that her initial tale was lame and needed improvement. The problem is, she didn’t merely tweak the original tale – she replaced it completely.

McGriff admits to speaking with Agnew on Christmas Eve, but says she was simply in the neighborhood later when “something” told her to drive by Agnew’s house. There, she saw two men coming out from the side of the house. She pulled into the driveway to investigate. After not finding the spare key, she went around the building, and “saw that the window was broke.”

“My mistake was, I did not call 911 and I went through the window,” McGriff said. “I just used poor judgment.”

She went in the house. “I said ‘well let me get what I know that they would probably want,’” McGriff said. She got the laptop first, and then said she saw the coats on the way out. She did so, McGriff said, to prevent the items from being taken should the two men come back. It’s what she would have done in any situation, she says.

Ah, Pastor McGriff. There are very good reasons for your rights to silence and legal counsel. Now I have to add pissing away those rights to your list of idiocies.

If the pastor thinks her second story is any more credible than her first one, she’s sadly mistaken. I’ll give her credit, though, for its intriguing components. It has mystery: who were those two men? It has the hint of a space alien: who/what was that “something” that told her to go to the house? It has danger: beware the broken glass. It has blood and gore: the injured arm. But, she gets points deducted because none of the elements fit together into a cohesive, credible, compelling account. I suspect that, unless it can be demonstrated that Pastor McGriff is mentally ill, the most cohesive, credible, compelling account is the simplest one: the pastor got greedy and acted on her greed. It’s a sordid, far too common, story. And, unfortunately for Pastor McGriff, if the story fits, the jury can’t acquit.

– the chaplain

UPDATE: Learn more about this story and Pastor McGriff here.

 

Telling It Like It Is

I stumbled across a great pair of old (well, 36 years) letters today. The first one is an asinine complaint by a football fan who feared being injured by paper airplanes:

That letter is hilarious on its own. When paired with the Cleveland Browns response, the combination is utterly delightful:

Come on, admit it: aren’t there days you wish you could respond that bluntly to a critic without losing your job?

– the chaplain

 

Let the Protests Continue – Round 2

As I noted in a previous post, the religious right’s opening shot in their battle against the recent repeal of DADT was framed as a moral argument. Since that particular shot missed its mark, their most recent shot is a pragmatic argument:

A retired Army chaplain says that with the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” many patriotic Christians may discourage their children from joining the armed forces.

I’m not inclined to give any more credence to this statement than I did to the moral argument that shot over our bows yesterday. The chaplain’s statement is completely speculative: Christian parents may do anything; I don’t see any data indicating that they may take this particular course of action as opposed to any other. If the chaplain is right, though, and some Christian parents did take such action, then it would be evidence that their primary loyalties are tied to their imaginary sky-daddy, and loyalty to their country is not only secondary, but contingent upon that country conforming to their standards. Do Americans really want to stack their military with fair-weather troops like these?

This next bit amuses me to no end:

“I think this is a time when Christians are going to have to sit up and think, ‘Alright, is this where we want our children to be? Is this the environment that we want our children to be in?’ — even though they might be tremendously patriotic”…..

Apparently, fundogelicals don’t have any problem immersing their children in an environment that almost always entails violence and death, but they balk at letting their precious little snowflakes risk rubbing shoulders with the gay. I guess sex is more dangerous than warfare. Who knew?

Just for good measure, this retired chaplain launches a moral argument at us:

“From a Christian perspective, from a Roman Catholic perspective, from a Muslim perspective, from an orthodox church in America perspective, from an orthodox Jewish perspective — from the perspectives of all the major religions — a behavior that has always been considered a sin and immoral is now going to be considered legitimate,” he laments.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the new law is not about the morality of homosexual sex; it is about the morality of denying people opportunities just because they don’t conform to one group’s prejudices. The new law reinforces two messages that fundies hate hearing:

• they are not the only people who live in this country, and
• their values cannot and will not be allowed to reign unchecked against the values of their fellow citizens.

Guess what, fundies! The times they are a-changing. You can either change with them, or wake up one morning and find that you’ve been left behind.

– the chaplain

 

Let the Protests Begin!

The Senate voted to repeal DADT this past weekend, and President Obama has promised to sign the repeal into law this week. And conservative religious protests have begun, right on cue.

One Christian writer opens his protest thusly:

A former Army chaplain who now recruits military chaplains says by repealing the ban, Congress has redefined morality, with uncertain consequences. Retired Brig. Gen. Doug Lee tells The Associated Press that chaplains from the churches he represents could be forced to choose between their career and their calling to teach and counsel what the Bible says about homosexuality.

First of all, I fail to see how repealing DADT “redefines morality.” This legislation does not address the morality of homosexuality. It simply acknowledges that homosexuality is not a good reason to prevent willing and able men and women from serving in the armed forces.

Second, any Christian chaplain who feels compelled to forego a career in military chaplaincy simply because he or she would not be able to expound on the Bible’s objections to homosexuality – few as they are – is not paying attention to the whole Bible. The 66 books contained in that anthology explore many issues besides sexuality. Surely, chaplains can provide comfort to embattled soldiers without discussing their sex lives. Psalm 23, that perennial favorite of folks seeking comfort, doesn’t say a word about sex, gay or otherwise.

Citing Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, the author complains that Congress acted with “needless haste” (I kid you not – that’s a direct quote) in passing this legislation. Then again, given the pace at which this Congress, particularly the Senate, has accomplished anything over the past two years, perhaps the author could be excused for mistaking anything faster than glacial melting as something akin to the speed of light. Drawing from Donnelly’s work, the author cites several examples of issues that will have to be resolved in order to implement the new policy.

• A mandate to “prohibit the creation of separate bathroom and shower facilities based on sexual orientation” ….

• Mandatory “three-tiered” education program, focusing on resistant combat troops, to change attitudes and opinions on LGBT issues….

• Punishments for “resistance” — i.e., zero tolerance of anyone who disagrees for any reason, including “moral or religious beliefs”….

• Repeal of certain personal conduct provisions in the UCMJ….

• Unresolved issues involving marital status….

• Unresolved questions about morale and costs related to the retention of HIV+ personnel…..

Honestly, the way these items are stated utterly fails to mask the religious intolerance that prompted them. If these issues are among the most critical that federal rule-makers have to face, then their job, in this case, will be laughably easy. Since several of these items echo previous objections to racial and gender integration of the military, templates for resolving them may already exist. Moreover, since implementation of new legislation always requires re-working of existing systems to accommodate changes, I’m going to call this section of the piece a bloated, juicy, dripping red herring. These items reveal more about conservative religious homophobia than they do about actual hurdles to the timely implementation of this law.

You probably won’t be surprised to learn that the Alliance Defense Fund is already making noises about the matter. According to them,

The Senate’s cave-in to pressure from activists to impose homosexual behavior on our military will place our troops’ religious liberties in unprecedented jeopardy. Indeed, the first official casualty of this hurried vote may well be the religious freedom of chaplains and Service members. ADF litigation counsel Daniel Blomberg went on to say “no Americans, and especially not our troops, should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs.”

Notice the iteration of the “hurried vote” objection. Congress could have reached the same conclusion after studying the matter for another twenty years, and that still would have been too fast for homophobes. Perhaps others hear, as I do, echoes of objections that were made previously to women’s suffrage and racial equality. What I find even more incredible is the statement that activists are trying to “impose homosexual behavior on our military troops.” LGBT activists are not trying to “impose” their “behavior” on anyone. They’re simply trying to gain acceptance and equality in a society that has cruelly viewed them, at various times, as mentally ill, degenerate and sub-human.

Finally, the idea that chaplains and religious service members will lose their religious liberties or “be forced to abandon their religious beliefs” is ludicrous. Those people will still be free to believe whatever the hell they want to believe. They’ll even be able to exercise and talk about those beliefs – in appropriate ways, at appropriate times, and in appropriate venues. What they will not be able to do is impose their beliefs on those who think and behave differently than they do. And that, my friends, is the real reason this legislation infuriates religious homophobes.

– the chaplain

 

Are You a Drifter or a Rebel Or…?

Young people aren’t walking away from the church—they’re sprinting. According to a recent study by Ranier Research, 70 percent of youth leave church by the time they are 22 years old. Barna Group estimates that 80 percent of those reared in the church will be “disengaged” by the time they are 29 years old. Unlike earlier generations of church dropouts, these “leavers” are unlikely to seek out alternative forms of Christian community such as home churches and small groups. When they leave church, many leave the faith as well.

Thus opens the publicity blurb for a book entitled, Generation Ex-Christian: Why Young Adults are Leaving the Church and How to Bring Them Back. In an interview published by Christianity Today, author Drew Dyck made this observation:

No two “leavers” are exactly the same, but some patterns did emerge. “Postmodern” leavers reject Christianity because of its exclusive truth claims and moral absolutes. For them, Christian faith is just too narrow. “Recoilers” leave because they were hurt in the church. They suffered some form of abuse at the hands of someone they saw as a spiritual authority. God was guilty by association. “Modernists” completely reject supernatural claims. God is a delusion. Any truth beyond science is dismissed as superstition. “Neo-pagans” are those who left for earth-based religions such as Wicca. Not all of these actually cast spells or perform pagan rituals, but they deny a transcendent God, and see earth as the locus of true spirituality. Spiritual “Rebels” flee the faith to indulge in behavior that was incompatible with their faith. They also value autonomy and don’t want anyone—especially a superintending deity—telling them what to do. “Drifters” do not suffer intellectual crises or consciously leave the faith; they simply drift away. Over time God becomes less and less important until one day he’s no longer part of their lives.

These groupings were not meant to be scientifically precise; their value was diagnostic and utilitarian. I wanted to help people understand why young people abandon the faith and equip Christians to engage leavers in meaningful conversations about God.

I’ll list Dyck’s categories below to facilitate my consideration of them:

• Postmodern
• Recoilers
• Modernists
• Neo-Pagans
• Rebels
• Drifters

I don’t think much needs to be said about the “Postmodern” category, as Dyck appears to have described that mindset adequately. I am offended, however, by his glib dismissal of the “Recoilers:” people failed and God was blamed unfairly. Uh, no, Drew – people failed and God did not do what he was reasonably expected to do, either

a) protect the victims who were hurt, or
b) prevent the perpetrators from hurting them.

In other words, Drew, God reneged on two of his key responsibilities: delivering people from evil (which is doubly evil when it’s done at the hands of so-called “godly” people or, even worse, in the name, and on behalf, of a god), and enabling his followers to be good, kind and honest, rather than nasty, brutish and devious. I consider divine protection and divine prevention (or intervention) reasonable expectations because both of those functions are ascribed to the Christian god in the Bible and in church doctrine. Therefore, when a god does not perform as promised, it’s reasonable to wonder if he/she/it does anything at all, including merely existing, and to reject a god that doesn’t live up to its billing.

Dyck’s characterization of “Modernist” church-leavers renders that category as little more than a stick-figure. Since his book is an example of social scientific research, one would presume that his concept of “science” goes beyond the “hard,” physical sciences that often come to mind when the term “science” is used in casual conversation. Readers who understand Dyck’s use of the term in that narrow sense may miss the fact that many, if not most, Modernist atheists are informed by insights gained through the natural sciences, the social sciences, the humanities, and the arts. We are not geeks with our eyes glued to microscopes, and pens and calculators sagging in our shirt pockets. We are multi-faceted people with multi-faceted interests who think in multi-faceted ways, characteristics that Dyck’s categorization appears to miss, or dismiss, completely.

The author’s final two categories seem adequate. I went through a period of spiritual rebellion as a teen, and I’ll admit that his description captures quite accurately the attitude I had then. And many of us can probably think of people who are Drifters.

I briefly considered getting Dyck’s book, just for shits and giggles, but I’ve decided to keep my money in my wallet. The bottom line is, I’m not going to waste my time reading a book that

…equips and inspires parents, church leaders, and everyday Christians to reawaken the prodigal’s desire for God and set him or her back on the road to a dynamic faith…. identifies six different kinds of leavers…and offers practical advice for how to connect with each type. Shrewd tips also intersperse the chapters alerting readers to opportunities for engagement, and to hidden landmines they must sidestep to effectively reach leavers.

The reason I’m not interested in reading this book is that Dyck has misidentified the problem at hand. His view is that people who leave churches are problems. I don’t agree with him. In my view, the people who leave churches are not problems. Rather, churches themselves are problems. The problem is not that so many people are leaving the church. The problem is that too many of them are staying.

– the chaplain