Chaplains told to shut up about God

A new trend is sweeping across the United States in many places where chaplains are employed.  They’re being ordered by leaders in both the public and private sectors not to make mention of God.  As reported on Saturday, March 21, 2009 by Stefan J. Bos of  Worthy News, Virginia State Police chaplains who prayed in Jesus’ name in public settings were dismissed from their jobs.  Virginia lawmakers, with the urging of Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, supported an administrative decision to make it illegal to pray in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and to dismiss the chaplains based on that decision.

This move prompted a Florida hospice to order its chaplains not to use the word God in any talks they give to staff members, but they can still say “Almighty God” in private with hospice patients and their families.  The CEO of the hospice, Paula Alderson, is quoted as saying, “The hospice remains fully comfortable with ministers, priests and rabbis offering religious counsel to the dying and grieving. I was sensitive to the fact that we don’t impose religion on our staff, and that it is not appropriate in the context of a staff meeting to use certain phrases or ‘God’ or ‘Holy Father,’ because some of our staff don’t believe at all.”

Mirta Signorelli, a devout Christian chaplain in Florida who ministers to abused and neglected children, was told by her supervisor after she quoted the 23rd Psalm in the hospice chapel to “cease and desist from using God in prayers.”  Signorelli, who eventually resigned, insisted that she was only quoting the Psalm, which is in the Old Testament, “[a]nd I am well aware that there were people from the Jewish tradition in attendance. I didn’t say Jesus or Allah or Jehovah. I used ‘Lord’ and ‘God,’ which I think are politically correct. I think that’s as generic as you can get.”

The number of people in the U.S. who don’t claim a religion is increasing, according to recent religious surveys, and this makes humanists, like chaplain Greg Epstein of Harvard University, rather ecstatic.  Epstein, of Jewish heritage, is borrowing ideas from Jewish and Evangelical traditions to establish “a God-free model of community”, where humanists have local gathering centers all over the U.S. to share their views, reach out to their communities, and “helps humanists increase in numbers and influence.”

In other words, unbelievers like Epstein are hoping to make America a godless society by converting as many people as they can to their way of thinking.  It is striking to me that atheists, humanists, and agnostics always claim they innocently want to improve society when their tactics only make society worse.  The dictionary tells us that religion is “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith,” and that faith is “something that is believed esp. with strong conviction.”  Essentially atheists, humanists, and agnostics are following a different faith or religion from Christianity.  Atheism is the belief that there is no God.  Humanism is the belief that man is the measure of the universe, that humans alone have the capacity to determine their worth, interests, and values to fulfill their highest goals.  Agnosticism is the belief that God’s existence cannot be proven or disproven.  They’re all religions!  Basically these anti-God religions, just like their counterparts in other religions like Islam, want to replace the Judeo-Christian values upon which our nation was founded with their own system of religious beliefs.

What Christian chaplains need to understand is that they have certain rights under the law, and one of those rights is freedom of speech.  For someone to threaten their lives or livelihoods by telling them they cannot mention God, the Lord, or Jesus, is a violation of their constitutional rights and they have the legal grounds to fight for their rights in court.  I know that sometimes as Christians we get caught up in thinking that God will fight our battles and all we have to do is back off, but sometimes in order for God to show us the victory we have to stand up and take action.  When the people in Nazareth wanted to throw Jesus over the cliff in Luke 4:28-30, he didn’t let them do it.  He maneuvered his way out of the midst of the murderous crowd.  When the Roman centurion wanted to inflict corporal punishment on the apostle Paul in Acts 22 without a fair trial, Paul stood up for himself and appealed to his rights as a citizen of Rome, and the centurion backed off.

There are times when we should avoid battles by resigning or not fighting unjust dismissals, but there are also times when we need to stand up for our rights.  This is especially true when grave consequences can come from being passive.  The ultimate danger of letting these people get away with violating constitutional rights is that the violation of human rights will soon follow and no one’s life will be seen as having worth.  Do we have any modern examples of how humanist or atheist or agnostic governmental policies work?  Sure we do.  Just look at North Korea, China, and the former Soviet Union.  Is this what we want for the U.S.?

The U.S. was founded on Judeo-Christian principles because it is the fairest system on which to base any government.  It acknowledges that mankind has the tendency to do evil and sometimes gets away with evil, but gives room for repentance (changing one’s evil policies) when people stand up against evil policies or actions.  It says there is only one way to God, but gives people the freedom to openly disagree with that view.  It also promotes the idea that in life, public or private, there must be some accountability for people’s actions in order to preserve people’s lives since we are all created in God’s image and that we matter from the womb to the tomb.  This is why democracy was the best fit for our government when it was established since democracy would allow for these principles to shape our decisions.

When humanist, atheist, or agnostic policies are allowed to shape our standards, eventually all of society will suffer wrongs in some way and these religions make it more difficult to bring about positive changes.  The humanist leaders would tell us that “Since I am the Master of my own destiny and the Captain of my own soul, I can do what feels good to me even if it means you lose your livelihood or life.  Only the strong survive and if you aren’t strong enough to survive my decisions, so be it.”  The atheist leaders would tell us “Since there is no God and you are not created in the image of God, the only importance you have is the importance that I decide you should have.  If you have no power above mine, then I have no need to fear you or the retribution of any God you say exists.”  The agnostic leaders would tell us “Neither you nor I can prove or disprove there is any God, so if my decisions cause you any needless suffering, it doesn’t mean my way is wrong.  I don’t have to worry about answering to God as long as I can exercise my will to make sure you don’t try to harm me out of your anger.”  Their government policies would not acknowledge the rights God wants all humans to have for their spiritual as well as physical benefit.

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

Newsweek beats steady drum against true Christianity

If you’ve been reading Newsweek throughout January ‘09, you’ve probably seen the articles on religion that they have been running.  The articles caught my eye because they all seemed to have an underlying, subtle theme to them.  There are three that captured my attention, which I will highlight and give my opinions on.  After reading the articles, I got the feeling that the writers and the editors at the magazine don’t really care for true, Bible-based Christianity all that much.  But I’ m not surprised since they are a secular organization that, like other secular organizations, desires a watered-down version of Christianity or the cessation of Christian views altogether in modern society.

The first article I came across was by Tony Dokoupil and had the title “The Lost Shepherd.”  It was an update on how Ted Haggard is doing these days and was published in anticipation of a follow-up documentary about him which will air on HBO January 29.  In the article, the fallen evangelist who had an ongoing affair with a male prostitute and bought meth from him, tells of the struggles he has gone through since his admission to his non-Christian actions.  Haggard talks about his anger toward himself and toward his church (New Life Church) that kicked him out, his severance package from the church, how he and his family had no real place to stay afterwards, how he had difficulty finding a job to support his family, and whether or not he will return to ministry at any time in the future. 

In the article, Haggard is quoted as saying, “In my [resignation] letter to the church I said I was a deceiver and a liar, but I hadn’t lied about anything except to keep quiet about what was going on inside me.”  So I guess to him, his showing up on the national news when the story broke to deny the affair and deny that he bought meth weren’t really lies.  Yeah, right.  It’s interesting how we as sinful humans can sometimes downplay our sins so that we come across as not being such a bad person.  Although Haggard in the article claims to have only had sodomitic relations with Jones (the male prostitute) during his adult life, word has now come out that Haggard was also involved with a twenty-something male volunteer at New Life Church.  This has both been confirmed by the church, who paid for the young man to get counseling, and also by the young man himself.  I wonder how Newsweek feels now that it has been revealed that Haggard has been lying to them.  Do they still have sympathy for him?

But I have to admit that there’s a part of me that felt sorry for him and his family, especially his two teen sons.  But after the article stated he got a six-figure severance, and he lied to Newsweek and its readers about being with only one man, my sympathy meter dropped for him and leaned more toward his kids.  Could the church have done things a little differently so his basic needs were met?  I think in this case, when he received the $140,000 severance, it should have been plenty to sustain him enough to get back on his feet financially.  I’ve known families who make less than this in a year and are rather comfortable.  Nevertheless, all too often when we as Christians are faced with disciplining people in the church we either don’t do it at all or we overdo it.  This reminds me of Paul’s encouragement to the Corinthian church to forgive and welcome back with love the man who had repented of having an affair with his stepmother (2 Corinthians 2:5-11).  Paul went so far as to say that when we don’t forgive and love a repentant brother or sister, they can be overcome by too much sorrow, which then leads to Satan having an advantage over the congregation and the individual.  In the Haggard case, the advantage that Satan got was the ability for a secular journalist to come along and portray Christians as unforgiving and unloving.

The second article is from the January 26, 2009 Newsweek.  It is by Eleanor Clift and is titled “The Quest for a Spiritual Home.”  It generally talks about how many religious Americans have switched either their denomination or religious affiliation.  Then it focuses on Father Albert Scariato, a gay Episcopal priest who was once a Jew.  The article goes on to give details about Scariato’s migration from being Jewish to being ordained in the Episopal church after his gay lover died from AIDS complications.  He gave up his job as a radiation oncologist to go full time into the ministry, but still considers himself homosexual.  He faced some opposition to his ordination because of this, but his ordination still went forward.  At the end of the article, Clift gushes about how the Episcopal priest is ” known for biblically based sermons that can be applied to daily life and that convey a message of social justice. He spends much of his time ministering to the sick and dying, and reaching out to the poor.” 

This sounds like liberation theology to me, which is not the true gospel.  Although Jesus Christ was concerned about the social state of mankind, his message and the message of his apostles was that if you first address what ails man spiritually, then man can reap everlasting benefits in this life as well as in the life to come.  Or, as Jesus put it plainly, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness: and all these [temporary earthly] things will be added unto you.” [Matthew 6:33].  If we truly want to promote social justice or minister to the sick and the poor, then we should let our actions and our words speak about the love of Jesus Christ–how he came to save us from our sins.  But, of course, this is not the gospel Eleanor Clift or Newsweek want to promote in the article.  They prefer the false gospel that says you can continue in your sinful lifestyle and God will continue to bless your ministry by giving you lots of people to follow you.

The third article catching my attention is titled “Faith Beyond His Father’s” by Tony Dokoupil and Lisa Miller.  We are introduced to such individuals as Doug Paul and D. J. Glisson who grew up in traditional Christian churches but have now embraced a more liberal theology.  It highlights the conflicts the younger generation of churchgoers has with the older generation of churchgoers.  The younger generation, by being exposed to what takes place outside the church, is questioning the values they were raised under.  Some of them, like Doug Paul, are leaving their churches because they are “tired of the narrow lens through which [their] pastors view[] the world.” 

Although many continue to be pro-life, they feel many churches are not practicing what should be the focus for Christianity–improving the lives of those who are less fortunate.  The article also highlights how the views of the “Joshua Generation” tend to be less judgmental toward gays and gay rights.  In spite of their evangelical, conservative upbringing, they tended to vote for Obama over McCain.  Doug Paul even expressed his anger with his parents when their church had a banner displayed by the road near the church urging Virginians to vote for the ban on gay marriage.  He was upset that this particular church felt “that gay people preyed on children,” especially since he and his wife were about to host a gay visitor that weekend.  But if Doug Paul really did his homework, he would find that many gays and lesbians became homosexual because they were molested as children by either gay perverts or straight perverts.  Those who are abused as children tend to be abusers.  Even if they don’t prey on children physically, they can sometimes prey on children mentally by presenting their lifestyle as fun and harmless.  This, in turn, will ensure the strength of their gay rights movement in the future since more people who have the right to vote  and shape public policy will be on their side.

It’s not surprising to me that the so-called Joshua Generation (the majority of whom are not really like Joshua at all) would hold to these views.  This type of thinking was bound to happen eventually with the way Christians have compromised the gospel both in church and in their home lives.  Having grown up in the age of the self-serving prosperity gospel and the lack of genuine love in mega churches, it’s no wonder the young people are disillusioned by what they’ve seen, especially since the economic downturn highlights how fleeting material things can be.  So since the foundations of the gospel were not sufficiently laid in the young people’s lives, the secular media has pounced on the opportunity to highlight the flaws of the Christian church.  On the other hand, young people are exposed to more false doctrines these days than in the past with all the different ways messages can be delivered–whether it’s electronic, broadcast, or printed media.  When messages that rebel against God’s truth are joined with young people’s tendency to rebel against their elders, the result will be a generation that sees God’s commandments as being subjective.

Overall, the underlying themes about Christianity that Newsweek is promoting are:

• Christians aren’t progressive enough.
• Christians should be more like us non-Christians who care more about people’s rights than they do.
• Christians should lighten up on their anti-gay positions since gays are harmless.

These themes will become more prevalent as the years progress since we are living in the age that is preparing little by little for the coming of the Antichrist and his one-world religion, to which true Christianity is a threat.

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

Judge tosses suit against religious camp for youth

As reported by Blake Nicholson of the Associated Press in the Christian Post, a federal judge in North Dakota threw out a lawsuit against the Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch which had been filed by atheists and agnostics.  The ranch has ties to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.  The Freedom From Religion Foundation joined with a handful of North Dakotans in filing the suit to object to at-risk youth being sent by state agencies to attend the camp, which receives government money.

Although the camp stated that it keeps funding for the religious part of their program separate from the part that requires government money, the filers of the suit argued that any group receiving government funds should not be indoctrinating children and should not be getting referrals from the state.  The judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not have sufficient grounds for a lawsuit because an organization’s receipt of tax funds was not enough grounds to challenge the actions of the state agencies.

I, personally, don’t agree with atheistic/agnostic organizations who are hell-bent on stomping out any references whatsoever to God, but I understand part of their concern based on my knowledge of history.  Many religious people throughout history have sought to force people to bow down to their religious views, whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or pagan, using the government as their tool.  When the Donatists separated from the Roman Catholic Church out of concern for spiritual purity when Constantine’s focus was unity, Constantine used his political power in an attempt to force the Donatists back into Roman Catholicism.  He issued an order in 317 AD to forcibly take away the property of the Donatists and to exile their leaders.

Augustine continued Constantine’s policies and went so far as to encourage the killing of Donatists and any dissenter who disagreed with his belief that salvation is only through the sacraments. 

Then the Protestant John Calvin came on the scene and abused his power to force his religious views in Geneva, Switzerland.  Calvin completely rejected the idea of Christ’s second coming to rule from Jerusalem and felt it was the church’s function to establish Christ’s reign by it’s own efforts by force, if necessary.  As leader of Geneva’s City Council, he made it mandatory for all citizens to attend church, ordered home visits to question people about their personal lives, told them what they could or could not wear in public and private, banned books he didn’t like, and made it illegal to speak against himself or any clergyman.  Violators faced punishments ranging from reprimands to fines to floggings to imprisonment to banishment and, in many cases, death.  Even though he spoke against the tyranny of the papacy, Calvin brandished his own style of tyranny.  He preached grace, but his actions were very ungracious and unmerciful.

Then, of course, there was Mohammed and his followers who went throughout northern Africa and Asia to force people to submit to his pagan god, Allah.  Those who resisted Islam (submission) had their property taken, rights violated, and were put to death.

So maybe these God-haters have a valid point.  But I imagine that if they reach their ultimate goal of wiping out any resemblance of God, they would become the new tyrants and would impose themselves as the religious zealots who preceded them did.

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–