This Man is not Christian.

Via Waylon Lewis
on May 21, 2012
get elephant's newsletter

I ain’t gonna vote for a baby killer and a gay lover!

This man is a shame and an embarassment to Jesus and all who follow Him.

Hate is not Love:

“I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers. Build a great, big, large fence — 150- or 100-mile-long — put all the lesbians in there… 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’ll die.”

Ironically, his plan doesn’t seem to work—feeding the LGBTQ community for free might be nice of him, but the fence would hardly keep future gay brothers and lesbian sisters from being born—though in would, in a stroke, put his “Christianity” in league with Hitler’s concentration camps.

“God have mercy. It makes me pukin’ sick to think about…I don’t even whether or not to say this in the pulpit…can you imagine kissing some man?”

“Notice the “Amens” from the congregation throughout.”

Pastor Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church — located at 3283 Providence Mill Rd, Maiden, NC 28650 — is seen here from a service posted to the church’s website dated May 13, 2012 calling for the starvation and ultimate death of “queers and homosexuals.”

For more information on this campaign, visit our Facebook page at or email us at [email protected]


About Waylon Lewis

Waylon Lewis, founder of elephant magazine, now & host of Walk the Talk Show with Waylon Lewis, is a 1st generation American Buddhist “Dharma Brat." Voted #1 in U.S. on twitter for #green two years running, Changemaker & Eco Ambassador by Treehugger, Green Hero by Discovery’s Planet Green, Best (!) Shameless Self-Promoter at Westword's Web Awards, Prominent Buddhist by Shambhala Sun, & 100 Most Influential People in Health & Fitness 2011 by "Greatist", Waylon is a mediocre climber, lazy yogi, 365-day bicycle commuter & best friend to Redford (his rescue hound). His aim: to bring the good news re: "the mindful life" beyond the choir & to all those who didn't know they gave a care. | His first book, Things I would like to do with You, is now available.


23 Responses to “This Man is not Christian.”

  1. GreenThumb says:

    apparently he wants his church's 501c3 tax exempt status revoked. With all that extra time on his hands he can git to littering the earth with more "youngin" as he'll have plenty of church approved/supplied Viagra and plenty of Christian women not on birth control.

  2. yoga freedom says:

    Utterly repulsive. 🙁

  3. shaydewey says:

    Posted equal right's elephant fb page.

  4. climblaughlive says:

    This is a great link to a pie chart showing what would happen if gay folks were able to get married:

    Well said yogafreedom…totally, utterly repulsive. My heart hurts hearing about him.

  5. muks says:

    Charles should try a Yoga class, maybe he would feel better about himself then.

  6. yogijulian says:

    seems to me what is and isn't a christian is a matter of ideological opinion – one could argue that there is a very high, perhaps majority percentage of on the planet (and even in america) people who identify as christian that would be if not in this guy's ballpark, only slightly to the left…

    there is a tendency we have to want to take ancient beliefs/scriptures and kinda revise them to fit our current liberal belief systems – like what jesus REALLY meant or what buddha REALLY meant or what patanjali/the gita is REALLY saying….

    this adds up to us imbuing ancient teachers/books with modern/postmodern values that probably are not really there. we do this in an attempt to both soften ancient texts and create a sense that our current values have some ancient authority and are somehow connected to an ultimate enduring timeless truth – when truth, and especially moral truth has been evolving for thousands of years.

    we can make a case for modern liberal values as the correct and most beneficial ones without trying to interpret ancient teachings as their source.

    we can also recognize that ancient scriptures are not a good source of modern liberal values because they are from a more primitive, superstitious, parochial time, which is entirely understandable and the best they could do!

    and yea of course this guy is a bigoted hateful prick – but then that puts him right at home with just about every fundamentalist preacher on the planet! are there more liberal preachers, sure – but does this mean they have the "correct" interpretation of being christian? i am not so sure….

    yes the new testament is less fire and brimstone, and yea he expresses certain "golden rule" type ideas – but let's not idealize christ as the gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-immigration, health care and financial regulation obama…

  7. integralhack says:

    Yes, but can we not take inspiration and even cull some ideas from ancient scriptures and use them in new and interesting ways? Do we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater if we encounter some concepts in the ancient presentation that does not jive with our contemporary scientific understanding?

    Hopefully your answer is "yes" to the first question–after all, I saw your great video on looking at chakras metaphorically and your presentation seemed to be in this vein.

    In regard to the second question, I think we do need to "check our reverence" when considering ancient texts and teachings but also read and attempt to appreciate them with respect. Our projections can run both ways, after all.

  8. yogijulian says:

    of course we can cull ideas and take inspiration – everyone is doing this though, and my point is that it is a tricky business trying to assert that REAL christianity is what fits our liberal postmodern values.

    plenty of other folks would say that REAL christianity is this guy's message or catholicism or mormonism etc…

    i am pointing out the problem with taking a stance that is essentially revisionist and tries to suggest that what jesus/buddha/confucius/doinysos REALLY meant somehow confirms our particular values that are REALLY sourced from somewhere else more relevant, contemporary and informed than the writers of stone age scriptures could hope to be…

    i am questioning the idea that this man is NOT a christian because he is spewing hateful homophobia, especially when christian churches (maybe a close second to islam) are major propagators, specifically of homophobic hate.

    i am enjoying the section in alstad & kramer's the guru papers on the tension between fundamentalism and revisionism, and how BOTH are still in thrall to notions of ancient supernatural authority.

  9. integralhack says:

    Ok. I just don't know how compelling an argument that would be. I would rather have it that Christians and Muslims, for example, revision themselves as anti-hate and anti-terrorism–even if that is just a growing consensus. I've seen alienation of right-wing hate groups be an effective tool when area churches and religious groups, etc. take a clear stand against them.

    You and I might say, "Hey, deluded Christians, why not join our Church of Richard Dawkins in place of Christianity because Rich doesn't come with all this magical/mythic baggage." My guess is that we wouldn't gain a large Christian following, but maybe hook up with some like-minded atheists and agnostics. My guess is that you and I would be the best looking girls in the room during that geek sausage fest. Yikes. 🙂

    So I'm all for redefinition–not to forget history or be ignorant of it–but to move past hate and give the real assholes a hard time.

    I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I'm pessimistic regarding an eradication of religion until there is a compelling attractor to replace it.

    I'll have to check out Alstad and Kramer's book one day. Thanks.

  10. yogijulian says:

    not sure who you think i am making an argument to……

    i too would rather "have it that Christians and Muslims, for example, revision themselves as anti-hate and anti-terrorism–even if that is just a growing consensus."

    there is nothing i am saying here that contradicts that wish!

    i am also not saying deluded christians should become atheists (and please hold the cheap and tired rhetoric of using religious terms to denote atheist figures, ideas or organizations!)

    who said i was trying to have richard dawkins gain a christian following?

    i am with you on what you are saying here – my point though is that we should be mindful of the tendency to want to define old world religious truths as if they reflect our current liberal values.

    they don't.

    my point is that it is a privileged revisionism that seeks to have the cake of ancient authority while eating the cookie of claiming that what the bible/koran/gita/sutras really meant amounts to post enlightenment, post modern liberal contemporary values – like say being pro gay rights.

    this tap dance has of course the added disadvantage of being incorrect!

    should we encourage the religions to become more moderate, inclusive, liberal and compassionate?! fuck yeah!

    the thing is though at some point as one takes down the walls between religion, science, psychology, and social evolution one comes face to face with the problem of supernatural belief that is kept protected from doubt by those very walls.

    at some point one has to give up supernaturalism and the fetishizing of ancient authority in order to be sane, integrated and have a sustainable spirituality.

    its an unpopular thing to say, but i think deep down most educated people know this is true.

    does this mean we are to enact some fascist regime that forbids superstition? don't be ridiculous!

    but it does mean that we can keep introducing healthy, viable, integrated alternatives as part of the creative process of evolving humanity and spirituality.

    this begins (as you gesture toward) with differentiating metaphorical and literal language, and can continue with differentiating the entirely natural spectrum of altered state experiences (from the sublime to the insane) from the supernatural interpretations that we ,especially in our past were prone to making…

  11. integralhack says:


    I guess I was just trying to understand your argument. No, I don't really think you are trying to organize a Dawkins Church–that was just an absurd example.

    Yes, I too think that religions try to use their icons to promote contemporary liberalism. In particular, some Buddhists try to present a historical Buddha who encouraged atheism, that he was a vegetarian (or perhaps even vegan) or was some kind of Marxist revolutionary. None of these things are true, of course.

  12. MeghanRussell3 says:

    Christian: adjective
    1.of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a follower of Christ.

    Jesus said "If you love me, feed my sheep." John 21:17
    Jesus was instructing His disciples and future followers to take care of the small, the over-looked, the ones that may not be able to speak up for themselves. Now, maybe I have been reading from a different translation than "Pastor" Worley, but as far as I can see, there is no clause, no catch, no loop hole. There are no asterisks stating "Feed my *sheep."
    *so long as those sheep are not gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgendered

    " Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit **orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world."James 1:27
    **However, if you discover that those orphans and widows are gay, stop caring for them

    The God I've known is not a God of asterisks, but a God of grace, forgiveness and second chances. I believe that the definition of God should be interchangable with the definition of Love. Unfortunately, that's not always the God that is portrayed by His followers. If a follower of Christ does a Christian make, then this man is by definition, not a Christian. However, if the world still associates "Pastor" Worley with Christianity, then maybe it's time for me to find a new religion.

  13. yogijulian says:

    the single point i am making is that we should consider more carefully the tendency to

    a) try to revise religion as if *all along* it was somehow gesturing toward the liberal values we now find meaningful so as to
    b) make it seem as if those values are rooted in some ancient supernatural/mythic authority.

    yes i agree about the buddhist revisionists – that was part of what got me thinking along this track – particularly this thread:

    i think that often when folks with your temperament try to understand my argument they interpret it as me saying we should somehow go out and insult and convert christians. i think and espouse no such thing…

    i do however think it is a good thing to inject into the zeitgeist/conversation a clear eyed critique of religion along with alternative ways of understanding ethics, meaning and integrated spirituality that has moved beyond superstition.

  14. yogijulian says:

    one can cherry pick the bible to find any number of pleasant or abominable admonitions. it is a primitive text written by superstitious people in a brutal time.

    there are so many infinitely better books to read now on just about every subject imaginable, from ethics to spiritual experience, to psychology etc…

  15. MeghanRussell3 says:

    Due to the content of the post, quoting scripture made sense. If the point is love, acceptance and tolerance, then does the origin of the verse really matter? Had this video been about a brilliant and lonely alcoholic, I may have chosen to cite Fitzgerald, Hemingway or my Uncle Paul. But it wasn't. It was about a man who's profession should be to lead people with love and grace, who is in fact doing the opposite. That made me sad and then it made me think of scripture. Cherry picking? Perhaps. Relevant? I think so.

  16. integralhack says:

    I don't have any issues with the points that you are making in a) and b).

    Do you really "know" my temperament? I don't think you are trying to be insulting, but sometimes the unintended insult may emerge from assumptions about temperament or for not considering that a particular religion–be it Christianity or Buddhism–might have schools of thought that have also moved beyond superstition.

  17. yogijulian says:

    after debating/discussing with you for close to a decade i think i have a sense of your temperament.

    i use the word specifically NOT to be insulting – as if to say yes we have different temperaments and so see things from different angles, which may just be in our natures.

    your temperament wants to make a case for religion that has moved beyond superstition and thinks that i am being insulting by not making space for this…

    my temperament says that religion that has moved beyond superstition is no longer religious because religion by definition entails belief in an immaterial supernatural divine order/being which is basically outdated superstition.

    as i have said c o u n t l e s s times: sure there may be a tiny percentage of theologians and intellectuals who have moved beyond religious belief but have a sentimental attachment to the gestures of it or see it in campbellian or psychologically symbolic terms, but so what – religion in essence and as practiced and believed by the vast majority, and even in terms of its dictionary definition is supernatural, is therefore superstitious because it requires faith in a non-physical god/intelligent being behind the curtain.

    remove this from religion and most reasonable people will admit that this is no longer religion and is rather a form of spirituality concerned with ethics, self-development, community, wonder, awe, compassion, insight etc – which is basically what i spend my life creating and participating in… so i am all for it! AND i think it is best-served by moving completely beyond superstitious belief BECAUSE superstitious belief is in my understanding a way of distorting reality so as not to have to face our feelings about being mortal, vulnerable creatures. – YET it is through facing those feelings that we become free of superstition and other defenses and thereby more integrated, honest and grounded.

  18. integralhack says:

    I don't think we have debated/discussed for even half a decade, so perhaps you're confusing me with someone else?

    I don't think I'm interested in "making a case for religion," my point is more generally philosophical: irrationality applies to all of humanity including the religious, the secular and even the atheist and purported rationalist.

    Furthermore, I think the program of debunking religion on these grounds leads to a distraction from real crises and issues: climate change (and other ecological issues), war, global corporate wrongdoing (sometimes related to the other two), etc. Religion might be a factor in some of these issues but usually it is not a cause.

    I think I grok your point: you are concerned with superstitious religion, not spirituality. I think it is a little problematic in terms of definition since some integrated spiritual people engage in organized religious practices. But I can put aside the hair splitting over the definition.

    After all, I am among the "tiny percentage of those who have moved beyond religious belief" . . . at least as you've defined it. 😉

    Thanks Julian!

  19. yogijulian says:

    you mean this is not matthew?

    i do not have a program of debunking religion – i am invested in providing a perspective on spirituality that differentiates itself from superstitious supernaturalism.

    i happen to think that it matters a great deal what we believe about reality, and that it has a large impact on our psychology, how we interpret our experiences, what reasons we go to war, whether or not we oppress gay people, how we feel about science and on and on…

    yes i agree the environment is a massive concern. do you not realize that a huge part of the bizarre refuting of global warming has to do with conservative christians mistrusting science, and that key political issues like:

    global warming
    teaching evolution in schools
    gay rights
    abortion rights
    women's right to contraception
    stem cell research

    are all very much playing out on the american stage of religion vs science?

    religion is also a central issue with regard to middle eastern war and global jihadi terrorism.

    when i use the term integrated i mean the opposite of dissociated or fragmented. i think that conventional religious belief and superstitious spirituality is a long standing defense mechanism against the work that makes one more integrated, ie:

    psychologically aware
    existentially honest
    scientifically informed
    philosophically coherent

    i don't think it is possible to be integrated in the way i am suggesting and still identify as religious, except in the very loose cultural sense of the word – like many american jews.

    but seeing as the definition of religion is:

    re·li·gion   [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
    a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (

    and the definition of god is:

    God   [god] Show IPA
    the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

    i find both religion and the belief in god that it implies to be philosophically incoherent, existentially dishonest, scientifically meaningless and and serving at a bottom the role of a psychologically defense, so for me the step towards spiritual integration means moving beyond these fragmenting, dissociative, superstitious beliefs.

  20. integralhack says:


    I see some problems here:

    First you begin by saying you don't have a program of debunking religion, then you state "i find both religion and the belief in god that it implies to be philosophically incoherent, existentially dishonest, scientifically meaningless and and serving at a bottom the role of a psychologically defense."

    It is true that you don't debunk religion–you just list claims against it. I think it is fine to offer your own God-attached, superstitious definition of religion, but keep in mind that not everyone–even those who would consider themselves "religious"–are in agreement with that definition.

    We can't cherry pick a dictionary definition of religion as if there were some authoritative consensus regarding the definition. The irony is that your definition of religion wasn't bad as popular dictionaries go, but then you hitch a definition of "God" to it even though some religions don't have gods. Your definition of religion even left space sans God, but you chose to ignore it.

    Let me cherry pick my own popular definition of religion via Merriam Webster: "2. a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices."

    That could mean just about anything, of course, and that's the point.

    True scholars of religion (and this doesn't only imply scholars or academics that are necessarily religious) don't rely upon popular dictionary definitions of religion since they understand that the topic is too broad, deep and multifaceted to provide a substantive definition or even a functional one.

    I already offered that religions are a factor contributing to crises like war and environmental disaster, but stated that religion is not the only cause. Critics of climate change, for example, include scientists who are corporate lackeys (scientists can also be intellectually dishonest) that represent corporate greed, not necessarily religious beliefs. War is widely understood by political scientists to be caused by conditions like competing nationalisms and disputes over resources which might include religion as a factor, but again, it is not the only basis for these conflicts.

    Even Islamic jihadists are often reacting to what they perceive as imperialist tendencies of Western countries like the United States. We might be considered "Christian infidels" now by some of these radicals, but we didn't start out that way until a history of CIA involvement, corporate manipulation and military invasion seemed to have us playing that role.

    The Islamic jihadist oversimplifies the problem and blames a large population for the actions of a few.

    Similarly, it is important that we don't define "religion" to fit an oversimplified view–mainly because such oversimplifications easily become prejudices.

  21. yogijulian says:

    FIRST: i asked who you were. please take off the cloak of anonymity – i was under the impression this was matthew segal – is it not?

    second: as i hope i have made abundantly clear, i am not particularly interested in being politically correct just because a tiny percentage of academics, theologians and grad students in religion have moved beyond belief in god.

    once belief in god is relinquished, calling oneself religious is idiosyncratic at best, dishonest at worst.

    i have no disagreement with the role that imperialism and covert skulduggery plays in many parts of the world. this does not change the fact of islam as explicitly inspiring jihadi extremists in a way that no other faith or philosophy does…

    in any event sam harris has already done a great job of covering this point – check him out if interested.

    as for prejudice regarding religion – come on.

    it is "cherry picking" to list the common definition of religion that the vast majority of people and indeed religious believers would agree with?

    besides this comment thread has more to do with whether or not we get to do historical revisionism and delude ourselves that the true essence of ancient religions contains our modern liberal values. it doesn't. it couldn't.

  22. integralhack says:

    FIRST: You actually asked "you mean this is not matthew?" which I thought you were asking sarcastically because my first name IS Matthew (and I frequently sign my comments as such). Earlier in this thread you were so matter of fact regarding not only my identity but how many years you knew me (~10 years) that I didn't think you were asking a serious question. I have no idea who Matthew Segal is. If you are confusing Segal with me, however, I can only assume Segal is brilliant. 😉

    Your comment regarding "the cloak of anonymity," however is laughable and complete BS given that your "yogijulian" handle isn't less anonymous than "integralhack." If you need more reassurance, however, you can ask Bob Weisenberg, Waylon, Ramesh and some others who can confirm that I'm a real person and have never masqueraded as this Segal gentleman.

    Second: Yes, I know you are not interested in being politically correct; no worries–you aren't in danger of even being close.

    I've read Sam Harris and had a discussion with him online.

    Does your glib comment regarding prejudice mean that you don't think that religions have faced prejudice? Yes, religions have dealt out prejudice as well–in fact, most significant human collectives have exhibited prejudice in one form or another. You seem to be suggesting that it is fine to be prejudiced toward religions because they have at times acted in the same way?

    My point regarding definitions of religion seems to have eluded you. My point was that *popular* definitions of religion generally don't reflect more sophisticated understandings of religion or even reflect common understandings of religion except those that are oversimplified, culturally insensitive and perhaps even jingoistic in their singular focus on deity-oriented religions, especially those that are Judeo-Christian in origin.

    Yours in Anonymity and Relative Truth,

    The Scarlet Pimpernel