But I Suppose Muslim Imams Would Be Peachy-Keen
Please read the following news exerpt (with the occasional editorial interlude) and then be prepared for a quiz afterwards.
Why would they care? Don't they hate the military anyway?
How about because the ecumenical landscape of the military reflects that of the society at large? So called "mainline" Protestant denominations (openly gay clergy???) and liberal Catholicism (remember the hue and cry here before Benedict XVI's election to the papacy that the Vatican was somehow obligated to change church doctrine to accommodate the backsliden state of the American branch of the church?) have been in steep decline for years, while conservative, evangelical "Bible" churches have been growing like the weeds in my backyard. Hiring more evangelical chaplains is simply a case of the military responding to an existent and legitimate need.
Now, the quiz: Why is this a story? How can it possibly be "controversial"? If the positions were switched, wouldn't the NYT be bashing the evangelical chaplaincy for being "intolerant"?
Give up? Okay, it's not that tough a question when you consider the source. Here, at any rate, is the answer:
Just in case any readers thought that meant a process akin to Borg assimilation, the Times "clarifies":
Note the incorrigible compulsion to subjectify even that, as though General Richardson really meant something else, something darker, more sinister, that he doesn't want the Times' readers to find out about. Maybe like how the Alien reproduces.
"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you."
They used to say there were no atheists in foxholes; looks like the Christophobes are "bent" on rendering that adage obsolete.
The increasing number of evangelical Christians in the military chaplain corps is once again creating controversy....As opposed to what alternative "bent," one wonders.
As NewsMax.com reported in May, a chaplain at the U.S. Air Force Academy – Melinda Morton – actually complained that the school's administration has a "pervasive" problem in promoting religious values with a Christian bent.
The chaplain's complaints earned her hero status in a report in the Times. Morton's criticism underscores the growing divide in the military chaplaincies between "mainstream" Christians and evangelicals.Translation: between apostates and genuine Christians. Funny how it's always the former that seem to make trouble for the latter, not the reverse. You could almost say there's a pattern in there somewhere.
The liberal Times has cast a worried eye at the growing influence of evangelical Christians among chaplains, particularly in the Air Force.
Why would they care? Don't they hate the military anyway?
From 1994 to 2005, Air Force chaplains from the Full Gospel Fellowship of Churches and Ministries International rose from none to 10, and the Church of the Nazarene's chaplains went from 6 to 12.Like this is some sort of conspiracy - which, of course, to lefties it is, along with just about everything else that doesn't go their way.
At the same time, Roman Catholic chaplains declined from 167 to 94, while more liberal, mainline Protestant churches also saw a decrease – for example, Methodist chaplains dipped from 64 to 50.
Officials with other branches of the military say they are seeing the same trend, according to the Times.
Religious leaders attribute the change in the chaplain corps to various factors,
including a shortage of Catholic priests, the liberal denominations' unease regarding military interventions overseas, and evangelicals' general support for the military.
How about because the ecumenical landscape of the military reflects that of the society at large? So called "mainline" Protestant denominations (openly gay clergy???) and liberal Catholicism (remember the hue and cry here before Benedict XVI's election to the papacy that the Vatican was somehow obligated to change church doctrine to accommodate the backsliden state of the American branch of the church?) have been in steep decline for years, while conservative, evangelical "Bible" churches have been growing like the weeds in my backyard. Hiring more evangelical chaplains is simply a case of the military responding to an existent and legitimate need.
Now, the quiz: Why is this a story? How can it possibly be "controversial"? If the positions were switched, wouldn't the NYT be bashing the evangelical chaplaincy for being "intolerant"?
Give up? Okay, it's not that tough a question when you consider the source. Here, at any rate, is the answer:
Brig. General Cecil R. Richardson, the Air Force deputy chief of chaplains, is unapologetic about evangelicals among the chaplain corp. "We will not proselytize, but we reserve the right to evangelize the unchurched," he said in an interview. [emphasis added]
Just in case any readers thought that meant a process akin to Borg assimilation, the Times "clarifies":
He characterized evangelizing as gently sharing the [G]ospel.
Note the incorrigible compulsion to subjectify even that, as though General Richardson really meant something else, something darker, more sinister, that he doesn't want the Times' readers to find out about. Maybe like how the Alien reproduces.
"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you."
They used to say there were no atheists in foxholes; looks like the Christophobes are "bent" on rendering that adage obsolete.
posted by JASmius at 6:16 PM
<<< Home