Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Protecting Inmates From Dangerous Ideas
Christianity is no longer permitted in Kentucky’s juvenile detention centers.
Chaplain David Wells was told he could either sign a state-mandated document promising to never tell inmates that homosexuality is “sinful” or else the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice would revoke his credentials … The Kentucky regulation clearly states that volunteers working with juveniles “shall not refer to juveniles by using derogatory language in a manner that conveys bias towards or hatred of the LGBTQI community. DJJ staff, volunteers, interns and contractors shall not imply or tell LGBTQI juveniles that they are abnormal, deviant, sinful or that they can or should change their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
One incident doesn’t constitute a trend, but this was predictable, and it’s reasonable to expect similar rule changes following the Supreme Court ruling.
Will this litmus test be applied to military chaplains before or after it is applied to prisons across the country?
Published in Culture, Law, Religion & Philosophy
Original sin means that we are all tainted with evil, not that we are evil. Christianity has always taught that human beings are created good and beautiful, like all that God creates.
Free will means that we are capable of rejecting God, which means rejecting love. That common temptation, which we all embrace at times, does not make us essentially evil. We are weak and incomplete, but not incapable of love.
It is important, however, that the word “evil” not become associated only with the worst horrors. We reject God/love in little ways, and those are little evils.
The state’s position seems to be that the Christian minister can reasonably be expected to exclude parts of Christianity or modify it to meet this new standard of ethics.
There will be a few takers. If the ostracism is widespread and forceful enough, world history suggests that many people will prefer security and comfort to inherited truths. Bonhoeffer made his name defying such a movement. Some will be short-sighted enough to believe a concession today would be the last needed to conform.
What is perhaps most saddening, as has been stated, is that Christian ministries have a proven track record in reducing criminal recidivism.
Who admits to liking gay sex in a prison anyway?
Publicly? Dan Savage?
“Christianity is no longer permitted in Kentucky’s juvenile detention centers”
That’s the first line of this post. I recognize that good writers go for a zingy, simplified headline to draw in readers. But does anyone seriously claim the sentence is true?
Many of you have expounded on how much more Christianity is than just this one little thing that gets all the publicity. Okay; so how is leaving this one thing out mean that Christianity is banned?
That strikes me as a reasonable answer. Good job, Donald; you’re giving your opponent second thoughts. Hard to do.
What other passages in the Bible should we erase, Gary? As I said already, there’s no reason to expect that omission to be the last.
Aaron, do prison chaplains routinely refer to black inmates as “the dusky sons of Ham”?
May a chaplain still teach that mutual masturbation is a sin? That anal sex is a sin? That oral sex is a sin? Or may he only teach such things to non-members of the LGBTQI community. Or, if he teaches such things to a member of the LGBTQI community, must he make clear that he’s talking only about heterosexual behavior and not the homosexual variety?
Gary, the Bible commands preachers to teach the whole counsel of God. He’s not being told to not focus on one thing, or to only address it when asked. He’s being ordered to sign an agreement to hide his convictions on an issue. Really, he’s being asked to acknowledge that societal norms are more important than Scriptural teaching.
Yes, that means biblically faithful Christianity is not allowed.
Religious persecution doesn’t start with declaring a whole system of religious belief illegal. It starts with finding something that the committed can’t budge on — even if it’s not the battle they’d choose, or a primary tenet. I don’t think any Christian cares to focus on this issue. There are a hundred or so things more important to most Christians’ daily lives and worship. But if you’re told “you must conform on this issue or else” — and you can’t conform in good conscience, became it comes down to scriptural authority — they might as well have attacked the central tenet of your faith.
Ah, yes. Jesus. No doubt he will be vilified because his original 12 disciples were all men. Why no women as disciples? Or whatever is the latest politically correct minority. Transgenders? Oh wait, surgery is required.
Another angle about this is that the government has a monopoly on incarcerating criminals and juvenile delinquents. If someone chooses to minister to inmates, he has no choice in where he can conduct his ministry. Given that prison ministry can only occur under the roof of the state, the state should give deference to the different religious views of those who minister to the inmates.
Do inmates have the right to refuse to be ministered to? I assume an atheist inmate is allowed to refuse a prison minister, for example. That should be the solution.
This is a complicated question. There is nothing that says a prison, or any other state-run institution (e.g. the military) must have a chaplain. What is at risk here, it seems to me, is chaplaincy, not Christianity.
I am sympathetic to this particular chaplain’s dilemma; I was trying to imagine having to agree ahead of time not to respond to a question about homosexuality out of my own and my denomination’s understanding (briefly—not a sin). I, too, might have to resign, for the reason DT describes. (It’s a comfort to know that all of you would be just as outraged over the insult to my religious integrity as you are about what has happened to David Wells, though.)
I tend to be a very practical, rather than theoretical clergy-person, so I tried to picture a situation in which a juvenile offender might come to the chaplain with a question about homosexuality. What might the kid’s motivation be?
The kid could be trying to get a rise out of the chaplain. (“Tee-hee-hee! I made him say “anal sex!””)
The kid could be seeking confirmation of his own (potentially violent) antipathy towards homosexuals and/or permission to be cruel to the gay-seeming kid in the next cell.
The kid could be struggling with his own homosexuality, or that of a parent, sibling or friend.
The kid could have all of the above motivations tangled together in his barely-functional, adolescent brain.
Ideally, a chaplain doesn’t react to any query from any person with recitations of Bible verses or doctrine. The chaplain does his best to respond to the needy person in front of him. My guess is that David Wells has, in general, done a good job of this so far. In his interaction with the kids, he probably didn’t “refer to juveniles by using derogatory language in a manner that conveys bias towards or hatred of the LGBTQI community” nor “imply or tell LGBTQI juveniles that they are abnormal, deviant, sinful or that they can or should change their sexual orientation or gender identity.” Since he was—from the evidence—an effective chaplain, he probably responded thoughtfully and kindly to actual human beings.
Wow.
Is that a yes-wow or a no-wow?
So, just so we’re clear, government mandated loyalty oaths requiring volunteers to deny an aspect of their religion on pain of dismissal are okay with you?
Anyone besides me remember the days when lefts were opposed to loyalty oaths?
Oh no, that’s protecting human rights. We can’t hurt delicate feelings after all.
I’d rather chaplains be banished completely if the alternative is a country where they can only preach what the state approves, a’la China. And that is indeed where we’re heading. You don’t have to like what the Bible teaches, but for the government to demand censoring it in exchange for the privilege of offering it’s teachings? That’s where we’re going.
83 votes. We came really close to being the dominant favorites to take the Kentucky Governor’s mansion. Instead, Bevin became the nominee by 83 votes. One family making calls, or even one really dedicated volunteer could have made that difference. We’re all guilty; it’s not like there was a whole lot of other races going on this year.
Every time we see a story like this, we should remember that this is the cost to sending a message rather than making meaningful improvements. It’s possible that Bevin will win, though, and I think he’d be helpful on this stuff.
I have no idea what you are talking about. This story did not involve any “loyalty oath” and did not involve anyone “denying an aspect of their religion.” If the state of Kentucky wants to invite someone to talk about certain subjects, it has every right to define the scope of the speech. If a Muslim cleric was invited to speak to these inmates, Kentucky would have every right to prohibit him from railing against the evils of eating pork. That is not the purpose for which he was invited, and instructing him to avoid the subject is entirely appropriate. But this does not mean that he is required to “deny an aspect of his religion.”
When you go to work, does your employer allow you to go around telling all the customers who do not share your denomination that they are going to hell? You may believe that; I’m guessing that you do. And you are entitled to that belief. But it doesn’t give you license to talk about it whenever you want. If you are speaking on behalf of someone else, you follow their rules.
This overblown rhetoric reminds me so much of the whining about “microaggressions” on college campuses. Some innocuous statement is blown out of proportion and becomes an ideological hill to die on.
So a chaplain is simply someone invited to talk about certain subjects? Like Bill Clinton, for example?
Basil, I think you know that I am now limiting myself to answering your strange questions only when you are willing to answer them yourself. So, you tell me. If a chaplain is invited to talk about a particular subject, does he cease to be a chaplain? If Bill Clinton and a chaplain are both invited to speak on a panel on a particular subject, does Clinton become a chaplain? Or does the chaplain become Bill Clinton? Or, to put it a bit differently, what the hell are you talking about?
In this context, a chaplain is someone who tends to the spiritual needs of a group of people. A speaker is someone who speaks to a group of people. Almost all chaplains are speakers but not all speakers are chaplains. Does this help?
The key takeaway is that Christianity was the fundamental worldview this nation was built on, and remains by far the most common among Americans. It has historically been given preference. But bit by bit that foundation is being rejected and the preference withdrawn.
When one worldview is rejected, it is not replaced by completely open minds. It is replaced by a competing worldview. Preferences are not eliminated, but transferred to this new perception of truths and moral duties.
The laws are changing not only because of judges and bureaucrats, but because American culture as a whole is changing. A generation or two ago, Jesus became a nonjudgmental buddy rather than Lord. We moved from condemnation of sexual sins to toleration, to indifference, to acceptance, and now finally to praise and protection of those sins.
This incident is a buoy on the water that tells us the next waves are coming.
Why should non-Christians be concerned? Because it’s impossible to replace a foundation without toppling all that was built upon it.
I hope it helps. I hope it helps you understand the difference between a chaplain speaking in his own church, and a person who happens to be a chaplain who is invited by the state to perform a service on behalf of the state, which service involves speaking to inmates.
If the people in charge of an institution set rules about what you may or may not say (let’s call it a CoC), then you abide by those rules when you choose to participate in that institution. I abide by Ricochet’s CoC when I comment on Ricochet. So do you (most of the time). If I don’t want to abide by those rules, I comment somewhere else. That’s how it is supposed to be.
I’m not clear on what you mean by “perform a service.” Do you mean just give a speech/sermon as a hired speaker, or do you mean perform all the functions a chaplain commonly performs? If the latter, the “service” in question obviously includes such things as conducting worship services and providing individuals and groups with counseling and spiritual and moral guidance. Some chaplains also hear confessions and administer other sacraments. Perhaps if you addressed my questions at Comment #38, we could clarify our understanding of the role of chaplains.
The story doesn’t tell us exactly what the volunteer chaplains do at this institution. I see no point in making up facts. It is not at all clear that the service the chaplain performs for the state includes conducting worship services or hearing confessions. It may be just individual counselling of troubled kids.
If the chaplain is hearing confessions, then I would have a bit of a problem with the state’s rule. The priest-penitent privilege is legally protected, and I think that is one context where the state has no right to set rules. But, again, that is making up facts.
A dear friend who is a law enforcement chaplain and a Southern Baptist, makes this distinction, too:
He does not proselytize on-scene, nor even to officers who come to him for counseling. “If you come to my church, on the other hand,” he says, “You’re fair game.”
If the difference between offering pastoral care and witnessing to one’s beliefs seems like a very fine line, that’s because it is. Not everyone is cut out to be a chaplain, particularly in a place where there is only one.
Large institutions may be able to offer services from a variety of denominations, so the Catholics can be counseled by a Catholic, the Baptists by a Baptist, Jews by a Jew and the Muslims by a Muslim (leaving the Unitarians and UCCs to gather in the leftovers?) but smaller institutions may not have that option, and the rabbi might have to do some pinch-hit pastoral care for a Catholic because the priest has a day off. Chaplaincy therefore does tend to foster genuine, respectful and loving ecumenism. If David Wells has been a chaplain for thirteen years, he almost certainly has developed the ability to find common ground on which he and his client—whether Jew, Greek, slave, free, gay, straight—might meet and begin.
I doubt he starts by listing and condemning the seeker’s sins. (Given that he is working in a juvenile detention facility, the chances are good that homosexual inclinations are not the worst of these.) The Southern Baptist chaplain mentioned above couldn’t agree to the statement that caused David Wells to resign… but I have seen him provide beautiful pastoral care to a gay man without seizing the opportunity to bash him with Leviticus.
Aaron is right about this: when one worldview is taken away, it is replaced by another. “Neutrality” is not an option—though humility is.
I don’t worry that Christianity will cease to be, but I do think chaplains will end up being replaced by social workers—Dutch law enforcement officers (and, I would guess, their prisoners) are offered shrinks, not pastors. Don’t get me wrong—I respect shrinks and their works, but there are dimensions of human life and need that clergy represent and meet in a way that other “helping professionals” can’t.
If it were up to me, I wouldn’t demand any statement or promise from a chaplain that would feel like a repudiation of his faith. I would rather choose my chaplains very carefully, and then let them do what they do. This particular tree can be known by its fruits. As my colonel once said; “either I trust my chaplain or I don’t.”
Beautifully stated Kate. And likely true of every function that government performs. Unfortunately, government bureaucracies are not good at that kind of approach. Pick good people and then leave them alone to do their jobs? That’s too private sector-y for government bureaucrats. The only way they know how to go about things is to set lots of rules and regulations, and then enforce them mindlessly.
If the complaint on this thread was about having a bureaucratic approach in the first place, I would be on board with it. But that isn’t the complaint I’m seeing. As Aaron stated pretty clearly, he wants the state to be in the business of preaching Jesus, and a particular understanding of Jesus at that. That is a whole different kettle of fish.
The linked article makes pretty clear that conducting voluntary worship services was part of what the chaplain did.