This is disgusting. By now, you may have seen it all over the media (e.g., here). Charles Worley, “pastor” of the Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, NC called for a concentration camp for gays and lesbians.
Worley said:
I figured a way out, a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers but I couldn’t get it past the Congress – build a great big large fence, 50 or a hundred mile long. Put all the lesbians in there, fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals. And have that fence electrified so they can’t get out. And you know what? In a few years they will die out. You know why? They can’t reproduce. If a man ever has a young’un, praise God he will be the first.
I asked Bob Stith, National Strategist for Gender Issues at the Southern Baptist Convention, for his reaction and he said Worley’s words were “a vile outburst” and said,
I think it is important to say in the strongest terms how disgusting and unchristian his comments are.
He added that the church is not in the Southern Baptist Convention.
The church website is down, but the Google cache indicates that it is an independent Baptist Church which believes the King James Version of the Bible is inspired. The “KJV only” churches are almost always in the extreme right wing of the church world. This church is a part of something called “The Only Hope” network. The church is also on this list of fundamentalist Baptist churches and this website seems to support Worley.
Such ‘pastors’ strike me as completely mad. It also seems that, while they would doubtless bang on about their ‘right’ to express their opinions (‘beliefs’) in the manner of their choosing, they favour Nazi-style ‘protective custody’* for those with whom they disagree.
Yes, Zoe – many of the problems of the kind reported here are the result of ‘book worship’: the Bible becomes the man-made idol, and God is crucified.
Danny – I think you need to start your own blog since you have so many good ideas about how I should run mine.
Grandma, I fear they are all cowering. What truly bothers me that IF he is SO convicted, then why take down the website?
I still think Mark Sandlin’s idea is epic, once again, http://www.thegodarticle.com/15/post/2012/05/a-sinfully-beautiful-response-to-ncs-latest-gay-bashing-minister.html
Zoe – The citation from Bob Stith was on the record and this blog is hardly private.
Im from nc, the Bible belt, and as far as I think we still have free speech. Or it seems every one does talking about him but heaven forbid he says what he thinks or what the kjv Bible says. at least he didn’t want to do what was done with such at sodom & gomorrah…rain fire and brimstone out of heaven
Hi Bernie 🙂
Great idea, I’ll so it. AND I am going to probably pick out that one Southern something (?) I’ll find it.
I am 1,000% with Zoe on this. I don’t consider an entry on a blog condemning this “Pastor” enough. Where is the big gang of pastors joining up for the press conference where they take turns speaking out denouncing this? That is what they do when they want to denounce any Civil Rights legislation for Sexual Minorities. They seem to get together real quick for that, and in big numbers in front of the press.
One blog entry, not even by the President of the Baptists Association, meh. It’s nice, but it is still “meh”
Where is the ecumenical crowd of Pastors on the dais preaching their condemnation in front of the news cameras? Did I miss them on CNN?
Well, it only took 3 days for Throckmorton to acknowledge this story, but at least he didn’t feel the need to package it with some off-setting comment by Dan Savage, as he did with the “crack that wrist” pastor a few weeks ago.
Throckmorton, you write thousands of words on Thomas Jefferson and David Barton, but you have very little to say about this. Perhaps it is because you know in your heart that everything this man says is Biblically justified. The Bible endorses mass extermination of peoples. God actually requires this on many occasions. There is genocide in Genesis and there is genocide in Revelation, some of it by God’s own hand and some at his express direction. And there is genocide in numerous books in between. So how can you call Pastor Worley’s final solution “disgusting”? If his sermon is disgusting, then so is the Bible.
Instead of posting endlessly on your battle with Barton, explain how you can reconcile your self-identification as a Christian with your stubborn refusal to endorse the mass extermination of sodomites and other sinners.
Ignorance is a choice
@ Danny
The Bible RECOUNTS some pretty nasty things, but it does not mean it ‘supports’ them (or can be legitimately used to ‘justify’ them). One principal function of the O.T. is to show us how NOT to try to ‘get right with God’ (and, somewhat to my surprise, I once heard this said in a really quite ‘fundamentalist’ church in the U.S. … but it was good that it was said, since I’m all in favour of good theology wherever it might be found!) – the sometimes barbarous O.T. ‘Law’ being a prime example of what DOESN’T work. (If the ‘Leviticus approach’ had worked, then the Incarnation and Sacrifice of Christ would have been completely unnecessary.)
As a Christian (rather than, one might say, a ‘biblian’), I believe that the core message of the Gospel must be used to set the parameters for any interpretation of any biblical text. As I said in a recent homily: Christ is Lord over the Bible, and not the other way round!
As for your assessment of Warren. Sorry – but IMHO you could not be more wrong. Those of us who have dealings with him outside of this blog are in no doubt whatsoever of his single-minded rejection of all conceivable manifestations of homophobia (i.e. I agree with Jarred, but would express the view even more strongly).
(On the matter of how properly to understand the Bible, I would cite the contrasting messages in the readings given to us by the Church for the Thursday of the Thirty-third Week in Ordinary Time, Year I. The O.T. reading, from the first book of Maccabees, tells of the ‘zeal’ of Mattathias, who used violence to ‘defend his religion’; the Gospel reading tells us of the compassion of Christ as he weeps over Jerusalem before allowing himself to be subjected to the violence of his impending execution. Instructive indeed, surely: the point is that, however honourable his motives might have been, Mattathias got it wrong.)
BTW, I gather that Worley might be in trouble regarding federal tax law: http://www.abpnews.com/culture/politics/item/7438-au-says-pastor%E2%80%99s-anti-gay-sermon-broke-tax-law
What Ken said.
To those above who suggest that Worley preaches to a small audience, Anderson Cooper reported that his church has a 1200-seat capacity.
As for Throckmorton’s parsimonious and belated post on this, it is his blog and he can do what he likes. I am not purporting to dictate what he should and should not cover.
I only suggest that his reticence and brevity stems not from the fact that this video is being amply covered across the internet and the MSM, but rather from the fact that, as a Christian, he has very little ability to respond to Worley. He can say it is “disgusting” or throw around some other completely subjective adjectives, but he lacks the tools with which to effectively counter anti-gay genocide on moral grounds.
As a Christian, in order to make a thorough moral refutation of Worley, he would have to refer to his moral lodestar, the Holy Bible. And the Holy Bible supports Pastor Worley. So I posit that Throckmorton is flummoxed and internally conflicted. Rather than grapple with the fact that his source of morality is a pro-genocide text, he defaults to a very short post, with no real analysis. His internal conflict resolved, he moves on to another topic.
But it won’t go away. Eventually, Throckmorton will have to grapple with the contradiction of being, on the one hand, a decent man who possesses a spirit of free and open inquiry, and on the other hand, a man who believes in the truth and wisdom of ancient Middle Eastern texts that support genocide and torture.
Dave says:
May 24, 2012 at 10:00 am
“This pastor is an extremist .. with a very limited and narrow audience. It is the news media that is giving him a loud voice. So I am not sure I would want to give him more publicity.”
Yes, Worley had a small audience, until the video went viral. And I can see how you might think it best if he was simply ignored. However, consider this. What if there was (and I suggest it is highly likely) a gay teenager in Worley’s audience? Someone whose parent’s made attend the service. How do you think it would make that person feel if the only reaction to Worley’s diatribe he or she saw was the applause he got from the other church-goers?
And yes, now a lot of more gay teenagers may see Worley’s “sermon”, but they will also see a lot of other reactions, like Warren’s and many other christians, to Worley’s statements. And I believe that is far better than to just let Worley’s statements go unchallenged.
This pastor is an extremist .. with a very limited and narrow audience. It is the news media that is giving him a loud voice. So I am not sure I would want to give him more publicity. It is good to counter him in a blog like this. In this case Warren has made it clear through his own investigation that this is an independent church .. not part of the Southern Baptist Convention. He, this pastor, is one insignificant person .. so why give him an audience?
Most Christians would not get anywhere near this persons ideology. The greater threat IMHO comes from public organizations like the FRC (who have already been declared a hate group) I fear that many many Christians listen to their rhetoric and are unable to recognize their bias or error.
Dave
@ ken
Hear, hear! Couldn’t agree more.
And let’s make full use of the likes of Worley as weapons against their own cause. These people often make doing that really quite easy. ‘Worley-words’ are just another good reason for keeping up the fight against homophobia.
I only suggest that his reticence and brevity stems not from the fact that this video is being amply covered across the internet and the MSM, but rather from the fact that, as a Christian, he has very little ability to respond to Worley.
Given the amount of time and blog space Warren has devoted to covering and repudiating the equally repulsive Bahati bill, I tend to think your analysis and conclusion on this matter is quite incorrect.
@ Dave
You put it very well.
@ Danny
Just because something in the Bible says that God ‘did’ genocide, it doesn’t mean that this was actually the case, especially when it appears not to be in accord with the Revelation of God in Christ. Those who, however ‘inspired’, wrote such things had their ‘axes to grind’, just as we have today. This is why carefully-applied hermeneutics is so vital for making a move towards ‘truth’; it is also perhaps why an increasing number of us (including some who are not noted for being ‘liberal’: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19594442 !) are voicing opposition to ‘religious fundamentalism’.
@ Dave
You put it very well.
@ Danny
Just because something in the Bible says that God ‘did’ genocide, it doesn’t mean that this was actually the case, especially when it appears not to be in accord with the Revelation of God in Christ. Those who, however ‘inspired’, wrote such things had their ‘axes to grind’, just as we have today. This is why carefully-applied hermeneutics is so vital for making a move towards ‘truth’; it is also perhaps why an increasing number of us (including some who are not noted for being ‘liberal’: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19594442 !) are voicing opposition to ‘religious fundamentalism’.
@Danny .. your understanding of the New Testament and judgment reflects a very simplist literalist interpretation. While there are some Christians that take such a view there are also Christians who are universalist (based on other passages) and there are Christians that believe God is looking for those who will respond to Him .. even if they don’t dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s in terms of belief But across that broad spectrum of beliefs are a majority of people who would regard Worley as over the top and extremist. So (IMO) your argument really doesn’t hold. You can proof text if you want but such a method does not match what many/most other Christians use in interpreting scripture.
@Danny .. your understanding of the New Testament and judgment reflects a very simplist literalist interpretation. While there are some Christians that take such a view there are also Christians who are universalist (based on other passages) and there are Christians that believe God is looking for those who will respond to Him .. even if they don’t dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s in terms of belief But across that broad spectrum of beliefs are a majority of people who would regard Worley as over the top and extremist. So (IMO) your argument really doesn’t hold. You can proof text if you want but such a method does not match what many/most other Christians use in interpreting scripture.
As christians, we are sinners which help each other on the way from vice to virtue. No how can we help Worley?
Exhortatio fraternalis (brotherly admonition) would be the classical answer; but it works only whe you know the right knob to press, and in Christianity we have wandered in so different directions that we don’t know much about each other’s knobs any more.
Happiness may perhaps still be a common denominator. Getting into a feel-happy-so-make-happy-so-feel happy-circle, That might be an attractive goal even for Worley.
As christians, we are sinners which help each other on the way from vice to virtue. No how can we help Worley?
Exhortatio fraternalis (brotherly admonition) would be the classical answer; but it works only whe you know the right knob to press, and in Christianity we have wandered in so different directions that we don’t know much about each other’s knobs any more.
Happiness may perhaps still be a common denominator. Getting into a feel-happy-so-make-happy-so-feel happy-circle, That might be an attractive goal even for Worley.
Richard –
I am not referring to mere descriptions of genocide in the Bible; I am speaking of numerous instances where God himself carries out the deed or expressly commands that it be done. Also, I don’t think you are in any position to say that Levitical law is “barbarous” when it is the law of your God. If you toss aside as barbarous the statutes in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc., you have no basis, other than your own personal preferences, for keeping the 10 Commandments.
As for the NT, it assures us that all of humanity will stand before a White Judgment Throne, where Jesus Christ himself will act out a Dr. Mengele-style selection process, checking names against a list in the Book of Life and then sending people to either the left or the right. Then He will send the group that had incorrect beliefs – the group comprising nearly all of humankind – to eternal torture. Before any of that happens, there will be mass murder on Earth itself upon His return, with something like 2/3 of the non-Raptured population being killed off at His loving hands. That’s not the OT, Richard. It is all NT.
Given this, I think Pastor Worley’s proposal is mild in its bloodlust.
Richard –
I am not referring to mere descriptions of genocide in the Bible; I am speaking of numerous instances where God himself carries out the deed or expressly commands that it be done. Also, I don’t think you are in any position to say that Levitical law is “barbarous” when it is the law of your God. If you toss aside as barbarous the statutes in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc., you have no basis, other than your own personal preferences, for keeping the 10 Commandments.
As for the NT, it assures us that all of humanity will stand before a White Judgment Throne, where Jesus Christ himself will act out a Dr. Mengele-style selection process, checking names against a list in the Book of Life and then sending people to either the left or the right. Then He will send the group that had incorrect beliefs – the group comprising nearly all of humankind – to eternal torture. Before any of that happens, there will be mass murder on Earth itself upon His return, with something like 2/3 of the non-Raptured population being killed off at His loving hands. That’s not the OT, Richard. It is all NT.
Given this, I think Pastor Worley’s proposal is mild in its bloodlust.
I suppose it would be to do with charitable status. I can see that AU’s position is somewhat tenuous. (I do remember an African-American friend of mine telling that his ‘pastor’ had told his congregation in 2008 not to vote for Obama, and I suspect such things happen really quite a lot. The ‘issue’? ‘Homosexuality’ of course! When isn’t it?!)
Richard Willmer says:
May 24, 2012 at 8:26 pm
“BTW, I gather that Worley might be in trouble regarding federal tax law”
Not for saying “I ain’t gonna vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover”. And I think Americans United is overdoing it with their complaint. I don’t like what Worley said, but I also don’t agree with this tactic.
I suppose it would be to do with charitable status. I can see that AU’s position is somewhat tenuous. (I do remember an African-American friend of mine telling that his ‘pastor’ had told his congregation in 2008 not to vote for Obama, and I suspect such things happen really quite a lot. The ‘issue’? ‘Homosexuality’ of course! When isn’t it?!)
Richard Willmer says:
May 24, 2012 at 8:26 pm
“BTW, I gather that Worley might be in trouble regarding federal tax law”
Not for saying “I ain’t gonna vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover”. And I think Americans United is overdoing it with their complaint. I don’t like what Worley said, but I also don’t agree with this tactic.
@ Richard, Thanks for the link. On that very same site, I found this: http://www.abpnews.com/opinion/item/7444-a-baptist-shame
BTW, I gather that Worley might be in trouble regarding federal tax law: http://www.abpnews.com/culture/politics/item/7438-au-says-pastor%E2%80%99s-anti-gay-sermon-broke-tax-law
@ Richard, Thanks for the link. On that very same site, I found this: http://www.abpnews.com/opinion/item/7444-a-baptist-shame
(On the matter of how properly to understand the Bible, I would cite the contrasting messages in the readings given to us by the Church for the Thursday of the Thirty-third Week in Ordinary Time, Year I. The O.T. reading, from the first book of Maccabees, tells of the ‘zeal’ of Mattathias, who used violence to ‘defend his religion’; the Gospel reading tells us of the compassion of Christ as he weeps over Jerusalem before allowing himself to be subjected to the violence of his impending execution. Instructive indeed, surely: the point is that, however honourable his motives might have been, Mattathias got it wrong.)
@ Danny
The Bible RECOUNTS some pretty nasty things, but it does not mean it ‘supports’ them (or can be legitimately used to ‘justify’ them). One principal function of the O.T. is to show us how NOT to try to ‘get right with God’ (and, somewhat to my surprise, I once heard this said in a really quite ‘fundamentalist’ church in the U.S. … but it was good that it was said, since I’m all in favour of good theology wherever it might be found!) – the sometimes barbarous O.T. ‘Law’ being a prime example of what DOESN’T work. (If the ‘Leviticus approach’ had worked, then the Incarnation and Sacrifice of Christ would have been completely unnecessary.)
As a Christian (rather than, one might say, a ‘biblian’), I believe that the core message of the Gospel must be used to set the parameters for any interpretation of any biblical text. As I said in a recent homily: Christ is Lord over the Bible, and not the other way round!
As for your assessment of Warren. Sorry – but IMHO you could not be more wrong. Those of us who have dealings with him outside of this blog are in no doubt whatsoever of his single-minded rejection of all conceivable manifestations of homophobia (i.e. I agree with Jarred, but would express the view even more strongly).
I only suggest that his reticence and brevity stems not from the fact that this video is being amply covered across the internet and the MSM, but rather from the fact that, as a Christian, he has very little ability to respond to Worley.
Given the amount of time and blog space Warren has devoted to covering and repudiating the equally repulsive Bahati bill, I tend to think your analysis and conclusion on this matter is quite incorrect.
To those above who suggest that Worley preaches to a small audience, Anderson Cooper reported that his church has a 1200-seat capacity.
As for Throckmorton’s parsimonious and belated post on this, it is his blog and he can do what he likes. I am not purporting to dictate what he should and should not cover.
I only suggest that his reticence and brevity stems not from the fact that this video is being amply covered across the internet and the MSM, but rather from the fact that, as a Christian, he has very little ability to respond to Worley. He can say it is “disgusting” or throw around some other completely subjective adjectives, but he lacks the tools with which to effectively counter anti-gay genocide on moral grounds.
As a Christian, in order to make a thorough moral refutation of Worley, he would have to refer to his moral lodestar, the Holy Bible. And the Holy Bible supports Pastor Worley. So I posit that Throckmorton is flummoxed and internally conflicted. Rather than grapple with the fact that his source of morality is a pro-genocide text, he defaults to a very short post, with no real analysis. His internal conflict resolved, he moves on to another topic.
But it won’t go away. Eventually, Throckmorton will have to grapple with the contradiction of being, on the one hand, a decent man who possesses a spirit of free and open inquiry, and on the other hand, a man who believes in the truth and wisdom of ancient Middle Eastern texts that support genocide and torture.
What Ken said.
@ ken
Hear, hear! Couldn’t agree more.
And let’s make full use of the likes of Worley as weapons against their own cause. These people often make doing that really quite easy. ‘Worley-words’ are just another good reason for keeping up the fight against homophobia.
Dave says:
May 24, 2012 at 10:00 am
“This pastor is an extremist .. with a very limited and narrow audience. It is the news media that is giving him a loud voice. So I am not sure I would want to give him more publicity.”
Yes, Worley had a small audience, until the video went viral. And I can see how you might think it best if he was simply ignored. However, consider this. What if there was (and I suggest it is highly likely) a gay teenager in Worley’s audience? Someone whose parent’s made attend the service. How do you think it would make that person feel if the only reaction to Worley’s diatribe he or she saw was the applause he got from the other church-goers?
And yes, now a lot of more gay teenagers may see Worley’s “sermon”, but they will also see a lot of other reactions, like Warren’s and many other christians, to Worley’s statements. And I believe that is far better than to just let Worley’s statements go unchallenged.
Michael C – Thanks, glad you see what is happening here. From time to time I want to comment on something briefly that others are commenting on more extensively. Worley’s comments are everywhere and being addressed in many different ways. I commented and added Bob’s comments because I thought they added slightly to the good of the order. They were not intended to be a comprehensive response.
@ Supports worley
One of the fundamentally hypocritical aspects of the old ‘free speech’ thing is that those who bleat pathetically about their supposed ‘right’ to spout vicious filth like that churned out by Worley are often the first to prescribe persecution for those who express a view different from their own.
Take the evil and murderous Bahati Bill in Uganda: part of its object is to criminalize even those who dare to suggest that abusing homosexual persons might in fact be wrong. There would no ‘free speech’ for those who object to such violence and discrimination in blood-soaked Bahatiland.
So, I think we cut the ‘free speech’ leitmotif in the context of this post! It’s just silly nonsense.
(By the way, in the UK, where there are clear laws against hate speech, it is also the case that a person’s right to express their ‘disapproval’ of same-sex relationships is legally protected, as long as they do so in an appropriate manner.)
Warren, Danny’s comment has prompted me to comment generally on your blog. I appreciate the fact that you usually focus on your areas of expertise. Sexual identity, basic human rights and (more recently) historical revisionism are the topics I come here to learn more about. I have other bookmarks for “gay news”. I’m sure articles like this are good for traffic, but your unique perspective on specialized topics are really why we all come here. Thank you for sharing with us your knowledge and passion.
Dave:
Did you see my comment (and link) where Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, joined in making a video to defend countries that criminalize homosexuality? Do you know what some of the penalties for the crime of homosexuality are in some countries? What Worley is promoting and what Land has defended aren’t all that different, and I’d say that’s an understatement.
Painting Worley as an extremist who is vastly different from most evangelicals just isn’t accurate. Unless you’re going to discount the actions of a man who hold a major role in one of the largest evangelical denominations as an out-of-touch extremist, too. And if you do argue that he’s an out-of-touch extremist, it begs the question of why his denomination allows him to keep such a prominent leadership role.
This pastor is an extremist .. with a very limited and narrow audience. It is the news media that is giving him a loud voice. So I am not sure I would want to give him more publicity. It is good to counter him in a blog like this. In this case Warren has made it clear through his own investigation that this is an independent church .. not part of the Southern Baptist Convention. He, this pastor, is one insignificant person .. so why give him an audience?
Most Christians would not get anywhere near this persons ideology. The greater threat IMHO comes from public organizations like the FRC (who have already been declared a hate group) I fear that many many Christians listen to their rhetoric and are unable to recognize their bias or error.
Dave
Michael C – Thanks, glad you see what is happening here. From time to time I want to comment on something briefly that others are commenting on more extensively. Worley’s comments are everywhere and being addressed in many different ways. I commented and added Bob’s comments because I thought they added slightly to the good of the order. They were not intended to be a comprehensive response.
as far as I think we still have free speech.
“Free speech” and “the right to verbally promote the abhorrent violation of other people’s civil rights and basic humanity” are not necessarily synonymous.
Plus, you know, I haven’t seen anyone on this blog or the other places I’ve visited who are saying this man should be silenced. Instead, I’ve seen people who exercised their free speech to declare what he said to be vile. Maybe there are places I don’t visit where people are actually calling for Worley to be silenced. But don’t pretend that this is what all people who see Worley’s statements as the immoral screed they are are doing. It’s rather disingenuous of you.
@ Supports worley
One of the fundamentally hypocritical aspects of the old ‘free speech’ thing is that those who bleat pathetically about their supposed ‘right’ to spout vicious filth like that churned out by Worley are often the first to prescribe persecution for those who express a view different from their own.
Take the evil and murderous Bahati Bill in Uganda: part of its object is to criminalize even those who dare to suggest that abusing homosexual persons might in fact be wrong. There would no ‘free speech’ for those who object to such violence and discrimination in blood-soaked Bahatiland.
So, I think we cut the ‘free speech’ leitmotif in the context of this post! It’s just silly nonsense.
(By the way, in the UK, where there are clear laws against hate speech, it is also the case that a person’s right to express their ‘disapproval’ of same-sex relationships is legally protected, as long as they do so in an appropriate manner.)
Warren, Danny’s comment has prompted me to comment generally on your blog. I appreciate the fact that you usually focus on your areas of expertise. Sexual identity, basic human rights and (more recently) historical revisionism are the topics I come here to learn more about. I have other bookmarks for “gay news”. I’m sure articles like this are good for traffic, but your unique perspective on specialized topics are really why we all come here. Thank you for sharing with us your knowledge and passion.
Dave:
Did you see my comment (and link) where Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, joined in making a video to defend countries that criminalize homosexuality? Do you know what some of the penalties for the crime of homosexuality are in some countries? What Worley is promoting and what Land has defended aren’t all that different, and I’d say that’s an understatement.
Painting Worley as an extremist who is vastly different from most evangelicals just isn’t accurate. Unless you’re going to discount the actions of a man who hold a major role in one of the largest evangelical denominations as an out-of-touch extremist, too. And if you do argue that he’s an out-of-touch extremist, it begs the question of why his denomination allows him to keep such a prominent leadership role.
as far as I think we still have free speech.
“Free speech” and “the right to verbally promote the abhorrent violation of other people’s civil rights and basic humanity” are not necessarily synonymous.
Plus, you know, I haven’t seen anyone on this blog or the other places I’ve visited who are saying this man should be silenced. Instead, I’ve seen people who exercised their free speech to declare what he said to be vile. Maybe there are places I don’t visit where people are actually calling for Worley to be silenced. But don’t pretend that this is what all people who see Worley’s statements as the immoral screed they are are doing. It’s rather disingenuous of you.
Yes, Zoe – many of the problems of the kind reported here are the result of ‘book worship’: the Bible becomes the man-made idol, and God is crucified.
Warren – thank you for doing all that you can do.
The problem is, you’re just one man. This blog, while ‘hardly private” and read avidly by genuine truth-seekers, is a whisper. If the issue truly was important to them, they’d be shouting, as they so often do. Their actions, or inactions, belie their words.
As for the Bible being Evil – much of it is. Much of it contains the distilled quintessence of Good though. 1 Corinthians 13 comes to mind, and Matthew 22:39-40 makes things even clearer. “All else is commentary” as Rabbi Hillel said.
Idolators – those who worship an object, a Book, comprise much of politically active Christianity today, possibly the majority of it. One only has to look at the political adverts, the open letters to Congress from “Christian” groups.
For Evil to triumph, it is sufficient that good men do nothing. Or make private statements (unctuous hand-winging and tut-tutting optional) to those of like mind, while publicly saying something quite different.
Just don’t be discouraged, OK? Open your eyes, smell the coffee, and don’t try to excuse them though. It’s hypocricy you’re seeing, phariseeism. I bet they were no more aware of what they were actually doing than the head of the SBC is.
Grandma, I fear they are all cowering. What truly bothers me that IF he is SO convicted, then why take down the website?
I still think Mark Sandlin’s idea is epic, once again, http://www.thegodarticle.com/15/post/2012/05/a-sinfully-beautiful-response-to-ncs-latest-gay-bashing-minister.html
Hi Bernie 🙂
Great idea, I’ll so it. AND I am going to probably pick out that one Southern something (?) I’ll find it.
I am 1,000% with Zoe on this. I don’t consider an entry on a blog condemning this “Pastor” enough. Where is the big gang of pastors joining up for the press conference where they take turns speaking out denouncing this? That is what they do when they want to denounce any Civil Rights legislation for Sexual Minorities. They seem to get together real quick for that, and in big numbers in front of the press.
One blog entry, not even by the President of the Baptists Association, meh. It’s nice, but it is still “meh”
Where is the ecumenical crowd of Pastors on the dais preaching their condemnation in front of the news cameras? Did I miss them on CNN?
Ignorance is a choice
Im from nc, the Bible belt, and as far as I think we still have free speech. Or it seems every one does talking about him but heaven forbid he says what he thinks or what the kjv Bible says. at least he didn’t want to do what was done with such at sodom & gomorrah…rain fire and brimstone out of heaven
Warren – thank you for doing all that you can do.
The problem is, you’re just one man. This blog, while ‘hardly private” and read avidly by genuine truth-seekers, is a whisper. If the issue truly was important to them, they’d be shouting, as they so often do. Their actions, or inactions, belie their words.
As for the Bible being Evil – much of it is. Much of it contains the distilled quintessence of Good though. 1 Corinthians 13 comes to mind, and Matthew 22:39-40 makes things even clearer. “All else is commentary” as Rabbi Hillel said.
Idolators – those who worship an object, a Book, comprise much of politically active Christianity today, possibly the majority of it. One only has to look at the political adverts, the open letters to Congress from “Christian” groups.
For Evil to triumph, it is sufficient that good men do nothing. Or make private statements (unctuous hand-winging and tut-tutting optional) to those of like mind, while publicly saying something quite different.
Just don’t be discouraged, OK? Open your eyes, smell the coffee, and don’t try to excuse them though. It’s hypocricy you’re seeing, phariseeism. I bet they were no more aware of what they were actually doing than the head of the SBC is.
Zoe – The citation from Bob Stith was on the record and this blog is hardly private.
Danny – I think you need to start your own blog since you have so many good ideas about how I should run mine.
Well, it only took 3 days for Throckmorton to acknowledge this story, but at least he didn’t feel the need to package it with some off-setting comment by Dan Savage, as he did with the “crack that wrist” pastor a few weeks ago.
Throckmorton, you write thousands of words on Thomas Jefferson and David Barton, but you have very little to say about this. Perhaps it is because you know in your heart that everything this man says is Biblically justified. The Bible endorses mass extermination of peoples. God actually requires this on many occasions. There is genocide in Genesis and there is genocide in Revelation, some of it by God’s own hand and some at his express direction. And there is genocide in numerous books in between. So how can you call Pastor Worley’s final solution “disgusting”? If his sermon is disgusting, then so is the Bible.
Instead of posting endlessly on your battle with Barton, explain how you can reconcile your self-identification as a Christian with your stubborn refusal to endorse the mass extermination of sodomites and other sinners.
I think this guy makes it far too easy for alleged-Christians (my term for Evangelical fundamentalists) to point and say, “See? We’re not like that. We LOVE you! (P.S. You’re still a sinner and going to hell.)” I kinda prefer the overt hate, as no one is going to commit suicide over this fool, but they MIGHT if their parents get a hold of a book by Focus on the Family. Those “please respect my choice” ex-gay groups are no better than this guy, in fact they are better at getting people to hate themselves.
@Ken, I intend on it.
Bernie says:
May 23, 2012 at 11:26 am
“Also, just found out through the grapevine, THIS, brilliant idea. Read on folks, http://www.thegodarticle.com/15/post/2012/05/a-sinfully-beautiful-response-to-ncs-latest-gay-bashing-minister.html”
I LOVE this idea. Everyone reading should make a donation 🙂
I think this guy makes it far too easy for alleged-Christians (my term for Evangelical fundamentalists) to point and say, “See? We’re not like that. We LOVE you! (P.S. You’re still a sinner and going to hell.)” I kinda prefer the overt hate, as no one is going to commit suicide over this fool, but they MIGHT if their parents get a hold of a book by Focus on the Family. Those “please respect my choice” ex-gay groups are no better than this guy, in fact they are better at getting people to hate themselves.
Also, just found out through the grapevine, THIS, brilliant idea. Read on folks, http://www.thegodarticle.com/15/post/2012/05/a-sinfully-beautiful-response-to-ncs-latest-gay-bashing-minister.html
The level of ignorance is unacceptable as far as I’m concerned. I was able to send him a little note before they took the website down. His email address is [email protected]
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we are giving this rinky dink little nothing of a theologically idiosyncratic church more free exposure than they would ever in their wildest dreams receive. No way around that, I suppose, but I think indifference would have been a greater torture for them. But hopefully it’s an encouragement that attendees of my own church of 15,000 are routinely exhorted to be the most loving friend or relative in any gay or lesbian person’s life, while holding to our beliefs about biblical sexuality.
Well said, Zoe! And let’s not forget that while Worley’s church may not be a part of the SBC, the SBC’s own Richard Land joined other men like Peter Sprigg in defending the criminalization of homosexuality in other countries. So just how far can Worley’s views be from at least some (prominent no less) members of the SBC?
@Ken, I intend on it.
Bernie says:
May 23, 2012 at 11:26 am
“Also, just found out through the grapevine, THIS, brilliant idea. Read on folks, http://www.thegodarticle.com/15/post/2012/05/a-sinfully-beautiful-response-to-ncs-latest-gay-bashing-minister.html”
I LOVE this idea. Everyone reading should make a donation 🙂
Also, just found out through the grapevine, THIS, brilliant idea. Read on folks, http://www.thegodarticle.com/15/post/2012/05/a-sinfully-beautiful-response-to-ncs-latest-gay-bashing-minister.html
The level of ignorance is unacceptable as far as I’m concerned. I was able to send him a little note before they took the website down. His email address is [email protected]
“…Forty years ago, they would’ve hung ’em — bless God — from a white oak tree,” Worley said in a 1978 sermon that the Providence Road Baptist Church has posted on its website, according to Good As You.
Listen to this Christian message at http://www.advocate.com/society/religion/2012/05/22/antigay-pastor-charles-worley-spewed-hate-1978
As for Bob Stith and the SBC – I await their public expression of these privately expressed sentiments.
I await just a single SBC representative saying, in public, and broadcasting it to the world since it’s so important “in the strongest terms how disgusting and unchristian his comments are.”
Or even in weak terms. Anything short of deafening silence.
But I’m not holding my breath. Look at what happened in NC. Look at what happens every day. These “single, uncharacteristic incidents” aren’t so singular. And the “No True Scotsman” defence is starting to wear a bit thin.
I accept that most Baptist churches aren’t this blatant in their beliefs. I accept that most don’t actually hold these beliefs; but they are enablers and fellow-travellers, and I can hear the Dog Whistling all the way from Australia.
Such ‘pastors’ strike me as completely mad. It also seems that, while they would doubtless bang on about their ‘right’ to express their opinions (‘beliefs’) in the manner of their choosing, they favour Nazi-style ‘protective custody’* for those with whom they disagree.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we are giving this rinky dink little nothing of a theologically idiosyncratic church more free exposure than they would ever in their wildest dreams receive. No way around that, I suppose, but I think indifference would have been a greater torture for them. But hopefully it’s an encouragement that attendees of my own church of 15,000 are routinely exhorted to be the most loving friend or relative in any gay or lesbian person’s life, while holding to our beliefs about biblical sexuality.
Well said, Zoe! And let’s not forget that while Worley’s church may not be a part of the SBC, the SBC’s own Richard Land joined other men like Peter Sprigg in defending the criminalization of homosexuality in other countries. So just how far can Worley’s views be from at least some (prominent no less) members of the SBC?
“…Forty years ago, they would’ve hung ’em — bless God — from a white oak tree,” Worley said in a 1978 sermon that the Providence Road Baptist Church has posted on its website, according to Good As You.
Listen to this Christian message at http://www.advocate.com/society/religion/2012/05/22/antigay-pastor-charles-worley-spewed-hate-1978
As for Bob Stith and the SBC – I await their public expression of these privately expressed sentiments.
I await just a single SBC representative saying, in public, and broadcasting it to the world since it’s so important “in the strongest terms how disgusting and unchristian his comments are.”
Or even in weak terms. Anything short of deafening silence.
But I’m not holding my breath. Look at what happened in NC. Look at what happens every day. These “single, uncharacteristic incidents” aren’t so singular. And the “No True Scotsman” defence is starting to wear a bit thin.
I accept that most Baptist churches aren’t this blatant in their beliefs. I accept that most don’t actually hold these beliefs; but they are enablers and fellow-travellers, and I can hear the Dog Whistling all the way from Australia.