Carnival of The Godless: Leave Mike Guglielmucci Alone!
The latest round of the Carnival of The Godless is upon us, this time (my first) hosted by OzAtheist. I’ve never participated in one of these before, so here goes!
Leave Mike Guglielmucci Alone continues over the fold…
Back in the mid-1990s, my uncle told me how he had come across a family of tourists in the dunes of Coffin Bay National Park, gathering around what to them seemed like an attraction. The attraction was a member of the species Acanthophis antarcticus, otherwise known as the common death adder (which along with Pseudonaja inframacula, the reactionary and rather venomous peninsula brown snake is very common in the area).
The thing with the death adder, is that you are supposed to bloody well leave it alone. Especially if you see one coiled up because that’s when it’s thinking about striking (and they strike fast)! Naturally oblivious like you common variety tourist, the adder was coiled up and my Uncle told them to back off, pointing out what the snake was capable of. They gave him a few rude words and proceeded to put themselves at risk.
This isn’t a judgement upon the snake. It’s not necessarily malicious if it bites some lumbering buffoon, it just doesn’t know any better.
Now the thing about these kind of behaviours is that there is a track record of them. We know, if we bother to pay attention to texts or kind advice from my Uncle, that a death adder can hurt you. It can close ground fast and give you a lethal bite.
If you don’t live in self imposed ignorance, you know to leave death adders alone.
It’s like that with some people.
It is in their nature to hurt, to harm, to disregard people’s feelings or to outright exploit them. They may not be fully capable of anything better or they may, but you can’t be sure. The one thing that you do know is that they are a part of a culture with a track record.
Mike Guglielmucci is such a person.
Now, I’m not saying that “the man’s a snake!” Firstly, this isn’t about recriminations. Secondly, and while not wanting to judge the man, I have more respect for a snake. Snakes have copped a bad rap from Guglielmucci’s coreligionists ever since the tale of Adam and Eve.
It’s just that Guglielmucci’s credulous flock have been acting like the proverbial tourist. Perhaps until now, Guglielmucci has had a clean record, but charismatic churches have not. They never have.
The 80s were rife with televangelist scandals in the US and the sad, sordid tales haven’t ended since. Mercy Ministries is a known sham, yet it still receives support from Pentecostal big wigs and why? Caring for people in an emotional sense may be in their nature, but being able to care for people isn’t.
I’ve had a number of acquaintances who have come out of charismatic churches in Adelaide, much for the worse. I don’t just mean as in “it’s not for me” but as in actual trauma.
I reproduced a quote from one of the flock earlier this week. It went…
“I find it disturbing when a person of faith decides they are going to “change their point of view” and “not believe everything they are told”. I just hope you don’t lose sight of the truth in the process.”
The truth being determined beforehand, rather than by the process of course.
One of my mentioned acquaintances believed when she was told, that she would be safe walking home with one of her congregation. She was raped in a park not ten minutes walk from the church.
Of course, of those she did tell, her congregation wasn’t on the list. Sensible. How damaging it would have been for her to have to face this kind of peer pressure, urging her to keep her mind on “the truth”. The truth being that while on the one hand, people are fallible, on the other hand they are to have their word taken at face value (especially if it is a guy or someone high up in the ranks telling you).
This is the worst of the charismatic Christian stories from Adelaide that I have, but by no means the only one. Employers fleecing their employees to pay extra money to the church, tax evasion organised by church staff (with a couple of renegades making backups of that which got shredded) and so on and so forth.
But anyone who hasn’t been under a rock knows that there are those in charismatic Christianity who engage in behaviours like this. Most atheists know it, most traditionalist Christians know it and the congregation of the charismatics know it themselves. People are fallible! It’s between them and their God! Stay in the faith!
It’s the fact that people could walk into this kind of environment and switch of their critical faculties that is damning. It’s as stupid as walking up to a death adder, wearing crappy tourist shorts and dancing around like a loon.
So the congregation shouldn’t be too hard on Guglielmucci. They knew it was possible all along that they could be taken for a ride (and if they didn’t I chide them for ignorance) and they made it so much easier.
Now, we all know full well why they did this. They wanted a positive message that would give them gooey feelings. It’s selfishness plain and simple. This self-absorption and credulity is a boon to con-men and it always has been. It provides temptation even to those leaders who never planned to cheat people in the first place.
The anger that some of the congregation feel toward Guglielmucci is itself a manifestation of the same selfishness. Guglielmucci brought people down from their high and made them look stupid in the process.
Firstly, I don’t care too much about the faith-high although I confess there is real pain there, but it is still far too egocentric to be healthy. Secondly, the congregation has no grounds complaining that anyone has made them look stupid; they’ve been acting stupid. Guglielmucci, like so many con-men before him, has in the act of revealing the truth, shown the character of those he gulled.
It’s like a 100% money back guarantee on penis growth pills. The victim, by complaining that it didn’t work, reveals something of themselves. They would prefer to keep quiet and thus the con continues as it does similarly in religious circles.
But it doesn’t have to continue. The congregation can stop it all and it doesn’t mean having to give up grace or forgiveness.
If you had a teenage child, who did something stupid as a result of being addicted to painkillers, you would likely forgive them. But you wouldn’t forget. Why? Because no responsible parent would. You would have to remember because you kid couldn’t possibly be qualified to peruse the medicine cabinet without reservation.
You need to remember in order to help rehabilitate at least, and to protect others as well.
Forgive works. Forgive and forget doesn’t. Grace is love in spite of something and if you’ve forgot, then there is nothing the grace is given in spite of.
Guglielmucci has a problem. The core problem is not that he has a porn addiction (if indeed this is at all true). Guglielmucci demonstrably has a problem in telling the truth. People need to remember this.
When a death adder coils, you know it is thinking about striking. There are tell-tale signs that shouldn’t be forgotten.
Guglielmucci faked an affliction to gain sympathy and control the congregation. Now, in full PR mode, Guglielmucci is presenting a brand new affliction (porn addiction) to gain sympathy and control the congregation.
The thing is, he’s manipulating congregation and mainstream alike. Atheists included. The media coverage to get his new victim of affliction narrative across is playing to his ends. Being assailed by atheist critics will bolster sympathy from atheist-haters in the congregation.
Guglielmucci may not have a bite in store for us all, but then a coiled death adder doesn’t always strike.
You can show grace, you can show love, you can show forgiveness. You can judge Guglielmucci no more than you would a snake, but you don’t have to be a patsy.
No sensible person would dance in front of a death adder. Similarly, the media should stop setting itself up as fools and stop giving the man attention. Atheists should say their piece and be done with it and the congregation…
The congregation of the charismatic should learn a lesson of the risks of their self-absorption and credulity in the presence of their religious leaders.
If Guglielmucci makes a return to his leadership role (which is clearly being stage managed for), this new awareness of the congregation should exercise itself by leaving the man well alone and not responding to the tell-tale signs of manipulation. No recrimination but not exultation either, they should save their respect for someone willing to earn it honestly.
~ Bruce
P.S. Unless something truly newsworthy happens, I won’t be writing anything more about Guglielmucci, at least not outside the comments threads of the existing posts where he is mentioned.
This is an extremely thoughtful — and well-written — post, Bruce. I can remember even in my full-on Calvinist youth attending (a touch dubiously) a Pentecostal church once, and that was over 40 years ago, where a young man testified to a “miracle” that struck me the as singularly dubious. Years later I recall the curate of an Anglican parish in Wollongong commenting rather sourly of a well-known healer of the day that he, the curate, had buried a number of that healer’s successes.
I have an open mind on such things, of course; there have been events I have heard about that have been hard to explain — but I don’t want to launch an argument on that front really.
There’s an interesting post on Guglielmucci on the God’s Politics blog: A Pop-Star Pastor’s Public Fall and the Christian Cult of Celebrity (by Jarrod McKenna). Allowing for the insider rhetoric — it is after all a Christian blog — there is some convergence between your post and that one.
The guy is obviously a “case”.
Neil, having followed your link, I ask: apart from talking about the same person, what is this convergence of which you speak?
PS credulity is not open-mindedness.
PPS So this person lied about his cancer and about his porno addition, eh? But he’s sincere. Right.
Brilliant post Bruce have linke to it from my only comment on the debarcle.
Yes, John. I may have been half awake when I wrote that — not in what I said about Bruce’s post I hasten to add.
I do think the other post adds an interesting dimension though and confirms that the psychopathology of Guglielmucci and the situation is fascinating. An example of Munchausen syndrome perhaps?
Neil, I’d not consider it true Munchausen’s, because I see no evidence of self-harm, but I definitely see the connection.
I’d suggest that, in this instance, outright lying so as to exploit the credulity of others to gain fame and fortune is merely cynical self-serving expedience. To be charitable, I suppose there may have been an element of “lying for Jesus” in this, but I certainly don’t consider it the primary motivation.
Bruce’s point (that the evident hypocrisy and calculated callous exploitation shows who this person really is, but that the faithful will in general rationalise this) is to my mind an example of cognitive dissonance (and evidence of the sunk-cost fallacy to boot), As your linked post shows, believers are still operating under the assumption that this person is genuine but had a failure which must be forgiven, whereas the evidence shows he is disingenuous and was merely caught out*. What’s the bet that, had the truth not come out, he would’ve had a “miraculous” cure?
If I would quibble, it’d be about Bruce’s implication that any publicity is good publicity in this case. There’s a difference between fame and infamy, and while this may possibly strenghten the faith of his sheeple, it should show the general populace that religious leaders can be as dishonest and unscrupulous as anyone, regardless of their self-proclaimed piety.
I think there are some convergence between the two posts, although not explicitly. I had a few things in mind when writing this, and while not nearly as lovey-dovey as McKenna’s post, and not being scripture based, there were similarities.
I thought about writing about some of these things “meekness” and so on, even translating to religous language in some parts, but deliberately decided not to. Just like I decided not to bring a few more issues to the table, such as the plight of the actually terminally ill, which would have brought about added complexity and an increased word count.
Not that these points weren’t considered, I just thought I’d resist the urge to obsess over ever detail for once.
If I would quibble, it’d be about Bruce’s implication that any publicity is good publicity in this case. There’s a difference between fame and infamy, and while this may possibly strenghten the faith of his sheeple…
I didn’t implicate the former, but rather the later with regard to the sheeple; they will have a profound bias for reading criticisms from atheists as persecution, and anything remotely trite, unfair or exaggerated will in turn be hyperbolised.
As for the general populace, I think that they already know religious leaders are capable of error. Perhaps the only shortcoming here is their knowledge of just how capable they are of shortcomings and to what magnitude harm is caused (outside the usual caricatures of sex-offending priests).
Oh, and thanks for the props, peeps.
Thanks for the clarification, Bruce. I probably read more into what you wrote than was there…
I have been searching the net for a particularly well balanced thought on the subject.
Thankyou for providing one.
The congregational syndrome is a real one! We have seen the emergence of a new kind of congregation. The grey heads ar going down in number and the middlings are busy with mortgages, children and businesses (not to mention the mid life crises), so we have a majority of mega church congregations coming from a generation that look to be sold something. They like their malls and multiplex cinemas and huge furniture shops They want their churches exactly the same. The church we have now ( I speak in terms of the Charismatic stream) is one that sprung from the demands of the congregants. We must keep in mind that we are not born of the will of amn, or of the will of the flesh – we are born of the spirit. That which is born of flesh is flesh.
Thank you again for a thought provoking post.
L
We must keep in mind that we are not born of the will of amn, or of the will of the flesh – we are born of the spirit.
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
AV, it puzzled me too. I figure Lawrence refers to Mammon, since it (sort of) makes sense that way.
I think Lawrence is saying that megachurches are marketed to GenY kids who are a bunch of unspiritual materialists.
@Bruce,
Your observations of the credulousness of some people is sadly accurate, but not all charismatic churches are like that. Many of them are warm caring and genuine, not into hype but rather helping each other in faith and daily life.
I guess it depends on your definition of a charismatic church. Mine for example, wouldn’t include the congregation of Martin Luther King, Jr.
As for the Ys being unspiritual materialists, again, the definition of the word materialist is debatable, as is spiritual. Spiritual in a Delores sense (where spiritual is defined as searching for meaning), or in a metaphysical sense. Materialist as in looking to material evidence or as in looking for ringtones?
As for charismatic churches, at least in as far as my definition goes, they are all involved in hype and twee as they are intrinsic to my definition. It’s the superficial tingly feelings that make up the charisma.
I love you so much! Great place to visit!,