Rev. Paul T. McCain, the obnoxious, festering Boil on the face of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod

Reverend Paul McCain Obituary - Ballwin, Missouri |
The Reverend, Paul T. McCain
Publisher & Executive Director of Editorial,
Concordia Publishing House
official publishing house of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod
Ordained minister and a member of leadership in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod

I loved my approximately three years in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod.  I loved being an orthodox Lutheran Christian!  I truly believed that I had finally found a Church that followed the true teachings of Jesus and the apostles.  And, to top it off, in what other Christian denomination can you boast of your unwavering belief in the inerrancy of the Holy Bible, while drinking a cold German beer with your pastor at the church Oktoberfest?  I enjoyed every minute of my orthodox Lutheranism.

Without a doubt, the overwhelming majority of LCMS Lutheran Christians are very kind, compassionate, and downright enjoyable people.  The teachers and faculty of my children’s LCMS school were absolutely wonderful.  The congregation of our local LCMS church was filled with wonderful, loving, caring, generous, non-judgmental, fun, people whom I and my family dearly miss.

Having blogged for almost three years as an orthodox LCMS blogger, under the blog title, Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals, I became familiar with and even conversed with a number of LCMS pastors.  I can’t say with complete accuracy, but my bet is that 80% of the LCMS pastors are good, conservative, but yet, very compassionate people.  LCMS president/bishop Matthew Harrison and Pastor Martin Noland are two outstanding representatives of this group of LCMS pastors.  Both are compassionate, good-hearted, and humble men.  I have the greatest respect for Pastor Harrison and Pastor Noland as men and fellow human beings.

Unfortunately, I cannot use this kind of complimentary language with approximately 20% of the pastors in the LCMS.  The pastors of The Brothers of John the Steadfast blog (excluding Pastor Noland) epitomize this group:  nasty, mean-spirited, judgmental, and quick to publically crucify anyone whom they believe has strayed even a millimeter from the fundamentalist/orthodox/confessional Lutheran playbook (Confessions).  Many in this group have expressed, anonymously and online, their contempt for the “wishy washy” (liberal/heterodox) comportment of President Harrison and other members of LCMS leadership.  But they continue to lose LCMS elections, so they remain a minority, a loud and obnoxious minority, but a minority all the same.

And then we come to Rev. Paul T. McCain, ordained LCMS pastor and Publisher of the Concordia Publishing House, the official publishing house of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod.  I would place Pastor McCain in a class all to himself.

It isn’t as if I just had the misfortune of running into McCain online in the last few days.  I have watched this man’s online behavior for three years now.  It is always the same:  “Agree with me or you are an idiot.  Give me a few minutes and will give you a new bodily orifice for daring to disagree with me, and, I will let the entire internet world know just how much of an idiot I think you really are.  Hee hee hee. ”  I have never in my life heard such nasty vitriol come out of the mouth of any Christian pastor or priest, Protestant or Catholic, than the vile, self-absorbed rantings of this man.

Paul T. McCain is truly a mean-spirited, vicious, sorry excuse for a human being.

But let’s let Rev. McCain (Rev. McNasty, as I prefer to call him) speak for himself.  Below are comments found on the internet by the infamous, “Ass of the LCMS”, Rev. Paul T. McCain.  I present them as evidence that this obnoxious, rude, condescending jackass-excuse of a clergyman has no business whatsoever being in a place of leadership nor holding the title of “pastor” in the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod.  I call on the honorable, decent, LCMS Synod President, District presidents, and the 80% of LCMS pastors who actually practice the compassionate teachings of Jesus, to immediately remove from office and defrock this boil that daily sullies the reputation of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod.  This pompous, pontificating jackass has dragged the name of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod through the sewage and mud long enough:

Lance this Boil, gentlemen!
The REAL Paul T. McCain, aka, Pastor McNasty

Below are a collection of comments I found in a matter of minutes on different Christian blogs involving “Pastor McNasty”:

Comment by Pastor Magnus Nørgaard Sørensen,  Wittenberg Trail blog, August 16, 2010 at 7:01am

To Paul T. McCain:  I have deleted your post because of its insulting commentary regarding Pr. Rake. You are welcome to defend your position and also to defend your lack of defense for your defenseless and self-contradicting opinion about the Mission Province. But you can keep your uncontrolled and rude personal insults against those, who disagree with you elsewhere.

The rest of your comment can be seen here:

“Apparently some people labor under the false idea that they have a right to use my blog site or Facebook page to grind their axes and argue ad naseum. I rarely ban anyone from participating on my blog or Facebook page, but when it does happen, it is because a person has determined that they are going to try to use my blog site, or my Facebook page, to push their agenda. You are free to do so, but you can start your own blog and your own Facebook page and have at it.”

No one has, as far as I can see, claimed a right to push their agenda on your pages. But some of us have used our right to comment on your use of your blog, facebook page etc. Your right to moderate comments on your pages does not mean, that others don’t have a right to comment your rude behavior in using your right.

This discussion shows, that your claim, that you rarely ban someone from your blog, isn’t true. In our private mail-correspondence about your blocking of me, you made quite a few accusations that you were not able to substantiate. I have seen more of this kind of accusations from your hand by looking a bit around. As far as I can see, you usually ban and insult people in stead of defending your position theologically, when they disagree with you.

I also think that your accusations against the STLK in Finland, both privately and publicly are against the eight commandment, as long as you have not substantiated them. You should repent of your sin and make contact to the STLK.

Comment by Timothy Rake, Wittenberg blog, August 12, 2010 at 1:44pm
Pope Paul (McCain) blocked a post that had the audacity to hold an opinion contrary to his own??? Shocking! Why, this is unheard of . . .
Comment by Suzee, Wittenberg Trail blog, August 12, 2010 at 2:31pm
Join the club. I didn’t disagree with him in the following blog link. I asked who the statue was of in a photo he posted with one of his blogs.

You, me, and many others have been slighted by the dear pastor (McCain). They will know we are Christians by our love?

Comment by Timothy Rake, Wittenberg Trail blog, August 12, 2010 at 8:04pm
Well, there you go! You should have known better than to ask Pope Paul (McCain) a question. Who do you think you are that he should deign to spend his time answering such trivia! LOL 😉
Paul McCain, the Cranach blog, December 13, 2013:
I was just informed that George is an ELCA Lutheran. What a tragedy!
George, December 18, 2013:
Paul, your past rudeness caused me to decide some time ago that I would not respond to your barbs. Now you can add false witness as another reason.  —George

47 thoughts on “Rev. Paul T. McCain, the obnoxious, festering Boil on the face of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod

  1. I'm surprised by you, Gary. Really, I am. This kind of vitriolic muckraking is beneath you. Calling people names, calling them sniveling or “lying sons of bitches”–is this reallybthe behavior you want associated with your name on the net? Aren't you the one who is supposed to have the moral high ground in your mind? This is petty.


    1. Hold on, I know this is an old article. I about this Orthodox Lutheranism, they came out of Hamburg,German. They are 100% antisemitic. Period.
      I saw their Facebook Page.

      I reported them to the Jewish Defamation League in New York State. They have a record on them. Remove from Facebook.

      I just got involved with this group. Sorry for the very long delay in replying


    1. Hi Gary I hope you can see my reply above to anonymous. I know this group Orthodox Lutheranism, they came out of Hamburg, Germany. There are a few churches in the United States. This type of Lutheranism is 100% antisemitic. The want the second Holocaust.

      I reported them to the Jewish Anti Defamation League in New York State.
      AJL has it on record, Facebook and Instagram closed down their pages
      I am so glad to ran into this group


  2. “The veneer of civility must be dropped in our War on the Purveyors of Hate.

    They must not be allowed the courtesy of sanctuary behind their fluttering black robes; their cross and icon shaped tom toms and voodoo dolls; their fancy sounding but worthless educational degrees in nothing more significant than PhD's in the Occult and Superstition.

    They must be seen for what they are: the scorn of Enlightened Society. They must be metaphorically brought kicking and screaming like the rabid, vicious, dangerous dogs that they are to the Court of Public Opinion, where they deserve our scorn and ridicule.”

    They are Evil incarnate. They are the Enemy.”


  3. Gary, you need to talk to someone about this. It's clear you won't listen to any Christians anymore, so ask your friend DagoodS. Ask him what he thinks about your behavior. You're only getting angrier, and you're not headed in a good direction.


  4. As much as I like DagoodS I really could care less what he or anyone else thinks about this issue.

    McCain and Veith started this fight; they have been allowed to peddle their fundamentalist hate-speech for far too long, in my opinion, without any significant repercussions, and I am now fully engaged at war with them.

    Other peddlers of hate, discrimination, bigotry, and arrogance be warned.


  5. Tu quoque is not a valid defense against accusations of error. It is, in fact, a logical fallacy.

    I don't think you'll find much, if any, support for McCain's behavior–at least, such as you've listed above. It has been remarked on and decried by not a few Lutherans, as even your excerpts demonstrate.

    Still doesn't mean your behavior is excusable. Or that you have any idea what you're talking about. You're deeply mistaken about McCain's role on Veith's blog, but you're so anger-driven right now that you won't listen to anyone tell you otherwise.


  6. So you're going to fight the problem of “hate peddling” by…peddling even more hate? That's your solution? To stoop to their level and be like them? If so, you no longer have any principle to defend. You're just trying to win at all costs.

    Of course, you're still deeply wrong about things. The fact that you're trying to implicate Veith in this is so laughable that it shows how out of it your hate has made you. And McCain may have done something to upset you (it's been known to happen to a few people), but you're wrong about his role on the blog.

    But then, you no longer seem to care about the facts. You apparently won't listen to those you consider allies.

    This is only going to end poorly for you, Gary. Stewing in your own seething anger is simply not a good idea.


  7. Your passivist nonsense was told to all social revolutionaries: Don't stir the pot. You will only make things worse and end up bitter.

    Thank goodness these fools were ignored then, and should be ignored now. Justice is worth fighting for. You will soon see why I include Veith in this war.


  8. Hey, Fundamentalist Prick: Who gives a shit what McCain's official role is on Cranach!

    What matters is that he is a paid official of the LCMS who censors speech that offends his fundamentalist viewpoints and sensitivities but then actively or at least passively condones and permits hate speech regarding other people who he judges as “sinning” and evil, by the definition of those terms in your disgustingly ignorant, violent, and vile ancient Voodoo Holy Book, but in actuality are not hurting anyone else. He and you are moral fascists and the Thought Police. You disgust me. I am at war with you.


  9. Gary, a wise green muppet once said “Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering.” Tu quoques, snarling, cussing out people…really, this is bad, and you of all people should know this. You're just digging yourself into your hate deeper. I mean, what kind of example is this for your children? You always talk about how other people (especially Christians, in your mind) dole out hatred, and now you're doing it. And to add to this, you sound like a madman. Have you gone so far that you will no longer listen to reason? Or have you sold your soul to your emotions and hatred toward men you have never even met?

    I pity you, and will pray that you come to leave your hatred.


  10. Why do you assume that everybody who responds to you is a bigot, Fundie, or a Hater? For all you know we're not bigoted, non-fundamentalists who just don't like vitriol? Or fellow agnostics for that matter who just don't bother with making Blogger accounts? Are you really that angry that you're going to bite anyone who talks to you, even your potential allies who feel that your emotions are harming you?


  11. I'm pretty sure most of your fellow atheists even won't follow you on your yelling-at-the-sky quest there, Cap'n Ahab. Not sure, then, how you're going to actually get the whole of society on board with your witch hunt.


  12. so anon (anons? plural? wish you anons would choose some sort of moniker or screen name to make it easier to reply)

    you accuse gary of lying, claiming that the person(s) that he thinks banned him did not. why can't the blog in question clearly articulate who exactly runs the blog, and who decided to ban gary? are you personally asking the blog in question to for transparency in that regard? from the evidence presented, while it may not be a fact, it's a reasonable assumption given that gary was in fact banned, it it correlated with the person in question's comment to that effect.

    also, given you say that the person(s) gary thinks banned him is/are well known by others on the blog as being a bit obnoxious, have you personally asked the blog in question to ban those people? if not, why not? don't you think consistency and lack of hypocrisy is important? don't you want to improve the atmosphere of the discussion?

    in other words, why do you dump the entire problem on to gary, and do absolutely nothing to (a) make the banning process more transparent and accountable, and (b) ban to other people who are well-known for being obnoxious also?

    in particular, given that gary will not be commenting there any more, that leaves the forum to you and your ilk. why not improve that forum by getting rid of some other troublemakers?

    i suspect the reason why is that you give a “get-out-of-jail-free” card to anyone that believes like you do, and dump all the blame onto the people that do not agree with you, as is amply demonstrated in this episode. in fact, your entire theology reinforces this psychological defense mechanism, as anyone who is not a christian who has observed christians arguing will attest. between “not perfect, just forgiven”, and “jesus said people would hate us for telling the truth”, you have a built-in excuse for ignoring anyone who doesn't agree with you, and ignoring any evidence contrary to your preconceived ideas. anyone who has observed christian apologetics can see this plainly, while anyone still a “true believer” is entirely oblivious to this.

    except, the cognitive dissonance of trying to hold on to your inerrancy in the face of actual facts means you have to retreat more and more from the world, and all disagreement is contorted into persecution.

    however, it's not fooling everyone any more, eg, see the book unChristian for survey of what non-believers and the unchurched actually think of christians — it's not flattering. and witness the declining attendance at most churches these days too. in short, while you can ban gary and “win the battle”, you appear to be losing the war, and i see little effort to even understand why.

    so, while i personally am not going to hold up gary as the personification of diplomacy, and his argumentation style is not my own style, i think it's clear that you anon's have dumped the entire fault onto him, and continue to hold the other forum completely blameless. in other words, par for the course for anyone who has observed christian apologetics.


  13. Hi Anonymous,

    Gary stated early in his post that he thinks that 80% of LCMS pastors are loving persons who genuinely attempt to show the compassion of Jesus to others. So Gary is NOT consumed with hate for most LCMS pastors.

    He is opposed to those LCMS pastors that are abusive in their internet writing.and I don't blame him.

    Anonymous! Are not compassion, healing-mercy and loving-kindness among the most important things that Jesus is said to have taught his disciples? Why have you honed in on what you perceive is Gary's anger without also acknowledging his generous acknowledgement of the love he has experienced from many LCMS pastors?

    Doesn't Gary have a right to critique those 20% of obnoxious LCMS pastors? I am sure that you would disagree with some of them. I just hope that you will try to understand Gary's point of view, even as it differs considerably from yours.


    John Arthur


  14. “why can't the blog in question clearly articulate who exactly runs the blog, and who decided to ban gary?”

    Up until now, it's never been an issue. Gary is the first person to accuse anyone other than Dr. Veith of moderating. And given that Amsdorf – the person Gary believes is the moderator – has had several of his own comments removed, it's safe to say that he is nothing more than a commenter, same as everyone else. According to Gary, though, he doesn't really care who the moderator is. As he said, “Who gives a shit what McCain's official role is on Cranach!”

    As for the moderating policy itself, Veith explained it all at the beginning of the year – three people flagging a comment puts it into moderation, though the comment still remains on the blog. Veith then exercises his own judgement in deleting any offending comments (Gary has had only one of his comments removed; compare this to another individual who has had every single one of his comments removed from the blog).

    Finally, as to your point about clearing out the other troublemakers, there really aren't any, although that will require some explanation.

    Perhaps the best example of someone who regularly deserves to be flagged would be Carl Vehse. Carl is probably the most extreme right-wing individual on the blog, and a fair number of his comments are racist or otherwise offensive. Yet people generally just ignore him. Why?

    Well, two reasons: first, he is a known quantity. He's been on the blog longer than just about anybody, and everyone's used to the things he says. I've heard people compare him multiple times to a crazy, racist uncle – you don't condone what he says, but you learn to put up with and ignore it. Plus, there are the rare moments when he provides genuinely interesting and insightful information. Secondly, while he may post some offensive things, he doesn't do so, and then go back and defend them, and then argue some more, and then keep on at it, and so forth. He posts his comment and then stops. He doesn't try to hijack entire posts in order to preach his perception of Truth. In this respect, he's not a troll, and so no one flags him. Instead, as I said, he's just ignored.


  15. what, exactly, did i misunderstand? since you give no specifics, it's clear you really don't want to have a conversation, you just want to bash gary, and anyone that disagrees with you, you give some sort of thought-stopper reply that's not really adding to the discussion at all. not really a surprise, i've seen this same pattern repeat multiple times, particularly on religious topics.


  16. so gary has only had one comment actually removed (altho multiple comments flagged for moderation), and yet has been banned, without any further explanation of the specific reasons why he was banned. while it is certainly within their rights to ban whomever they want, should they provide a bit more explanation of the specific reasons why?

    and is it unreasonable to assume that mccain, despite perhaps not being the official moderator, is a regular and influential commenter, and perhaps had something to do with the banning behind the scenes? and given that mccain himself, is seemingly known by some/many, as being a bit abrasive himself, and yet he remains un-banned, is a charge of hypocrisy that far-fetched?

    now, add in the many anon snarky commenters by christians on gary's blog over the months since his deconversion, can you at least understand why he might get his hackles up? (in fact, i'd suggest you and pastor mahlon are about the only 2 christian posters on gary's blog that disagree with him, and yet are still civil in the tone of your comments.)

    so, an anon a couple posts back called gary a liar (twice) ( )
    for (perhaps) naming the wrong person as the one who banned him. does it really matter much who banned gary, or who he thinks banned him? why chase him over to his own blog, and call him a liar? aren't you rid of him now? isn't that what everyone wanted? what is it really that everyone wants gary to do?


  17. I would actually welcome some sort of statement from Dr. Veith on Gary's banning – who was involved, how long Gary will be banned, etc. – but I don't think such a statement would actually help anything right now. Gary seems to have moved beyond that issue, and he now appears to have some deeper complaints about the blog. That's my impression based on his last several posts and comments, anyways.

    I will not try to defend McCain's past online behavior in any way; it is sadly very well-known in LCMS (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) circles that he can be nasty online. I will say, he has gotten much, much better over the past year or so, and I hope this trend continues. He himself has recognized that his past behavior was wrong and has apologized for it.

    If what you say is true – that there have been only two civil Christians commenting on this blog, while the rest have been mean-spirited (such as the indefensible comment you linked to) – that is a scandal; I give my apologies to Gary; and I hope the offending commenters come to repentance. (I think you may at least be forgetting about Abby, though, as I know she's commented over here in the past, and I've never seen a mean-spirited comment from her.)

    I will say that I don't think Gary is blameless in his behavior over at Cranach, but neither are the rest of the commenters. As happens so often in blogs, the conversation quickly descended into tit-for-tat bickering. It didn't help in this case that Gary's departure last time was less than amicable on both sides. It also didn't help that the people on Cranach are generally pretty snarky to begin with, even amongst themselves, which can come across as mean-spirited if you're not used to it.

    “aren't you rid of him now? isn't that what everyone wanted? what is it really that everyone wants gary to do?” I don't think anyone would be upset if Gary came back and had something to contribute besides “I am here to evangelize on behalf of atheism.” To that point, I'd like to offer up the example of Brian Bowman, who had a similar agenda this time last year – he had an obsession with the Thomas Jefferson Bible, and he hijacked every post to talk about it. In the past, this is what Gary has done with regards to atheism, and, right away, he starts at it again. I can see how Gary could be upset that he was banned, but I hope you can also see how exasperated people over at Cranach might be to see him come back and begin the same behavior over again.


  18. These three posts show the progression of the moderating policy:
    These lay out the moderating policy Veith was forced to put in place to deal with people who were trolling. I also think Veith's comment to Brian (Brian subsequently deleted all of his own comments) has some application to Gary:


  19. re: “I think you may at least be forgetting about Abby, though, as I know she's commented over here in the past, and I've never seen a mean-spirited comment from her.”

    you're right, i did forget about her. while many/most of her comments were not mean-spirited, a few of her comments were snarky and passive aggressive. (google doesn't appear to search the comments, so i can't find an example.) so she's certainly quite a few steps above most of the others, and should be commended for that, but she did have the occasional mean streak (as do most/all of us.)

    re: “I will say that I don't think Gary is blameless in his behavior over at Cranach, but neither are the rest of the commenters. “

    i don't follow that blog, but i suspect you're right. however, at the end of the day, gary is still the only one that was banned. some people might interpret that to be different standards of acceptable behavior depending on whether you agree or disagree with the blog owner. some might even go so far as to call that hypocrisy. particularly in light of mccain, as you state: “I will not try to defend McCain's past online behavior in any way; …”

    who has also never been banned, and i'd guess that because he's high profile, is much more of a trendsetter for the tone of the blog that gary. and yet, gary is still the only one banned.

    so, as is typical, the in-group has a “get-out-of-jail-free” card, and the out-group gets burned in hell. orthodoxy vs orthopraxy. salvation via proper belief, not proper works.

    all this despite admonition to love your neighbor as yourself. despite the parable of the good Samaritan to emphasize that “neighbor” means everyone, not only the people with the same religious beliefs. despite jesus hanging around tax collectors and other undesirables. despite the sermon on the mount that emphasized proper action not proper belief. despite the claims that the holy ghost is supposed to make you a new person, and yet so few appear to change.

    it all looks suspiciously like simple tribalism. and that, to me, as an outside observer, is the most interesting point.

    re: “I don't think anyone would be upset if Gary came back and had something to contribute besides “I am here to evangelize on behalf of atheism.” “

    well, given that in fact he is atheist, what exactly do you think he has to contribute then?

    re: “… I hope you can also see how exasperated people over at Cranach might be …”

    yes, i can certainly understand that. a year ago, back when gary was still a believer, he was banned for a while from an atheist blog that i frequented. (the blog owner had/has numerous health problems and therefore limited energy.) gary's style is still the same in many ways.

    however, unlike many people, he does actually engage with what people argue. many people on highly contentious issues do not.


  20. “while many/most of her comments were not mean-spirited, a few of her comments were snarky and passive aggressive”

    I tend to make a distinction between snark and mean-spiritedness, though I realize it can be difficult determining when one turns into the other. As long as everyone's on the same page, I think snark can actually be very fun. Unfortunately, I think the snark level over at Cranach may have part of the problem. Many of the commenters have known each other, at least online, for years, and as such they feel very comfortable picking on each other, (usually) without any malicious intentions. To someone not used to that, it can be a bit off-putting.

    “gary is still the only one that was banned”

    I think this is due to two different reasons. First, it takes three people flagging a comment to put it into moderation. Even if Gary flagged every single comment on the blog, he couldn't put anything into moderation. On the other hand, it only took three of the regular commenters finding Gary's behavior offensive to put his comments into moderation. In that respect, I suppose you could make the argument that tribalism was a factor.

    However, more importantly, what I saw, and what everyone else saw, was trolling. Gary has been on this blog before, and he has a bit of a history of trolling. He very quickly started off with the same exact behavior. As a result, everyone started flagging much, much, much more quickly than they would have if he had been someone new. It also didn't help that his first comment in several months was on a post entitled “Professional Trolls.”

    As for Amsdorf, I would say his recent behavior has been by and large perfectly fine. From what I can tell, Gary didn't quote anything from this year in this post, and some things he quoted are from as long ago as 2003, if Abby is to be believed. Amsdorf hasn't said anything worth banning over the past several months that I can remember.

    “well, given that in fact he is atheist, what exactly do you think he has to contribute then?”

    Recent topics on the blog include police brutality, economics, North Korea, politics, government corruption, abortion, Richard III's DNA, young people, the new Star Wars movie, the Ferguson riots, etc. Surely atheists have opinions on those topics as well? The Christians who comment there certainly do, and at least a few atheists comment on these and other non-religious topics from time to time without feeling the need to take the opportunity to evangelize. That is Gary's problem: he wants to talk about nothing but religion in a topic which has absolutely nothing to do with religion. There's a time and a place, you know?


  21. This blog received over 1,000 views today, most viewing this particular post, and many “source” of views, coming from Lutheran pastors' blogs on

    A lot of orthodox Lutherans are now aware of the inappropriate, un-pastor-like behavior of Paul T. McCain. Let's see if they actually do something about him.

    I will keep you updated.


  22. my understanding is that having individual comments put into moderation is a separate issue than being banned outright and prevented from making further comments. is that a correct assumption?

    i think having multiple individual comments put into moderation but not truly deleted is less of an issue that outright banning him.

    i didn't check the timestamps of all the other postings. certainly if all those posts are stretched out over a long period of time vs being concentrated, that would certainly change people's perceptions.

    re: snark
    i agree it can be done without mean spiritedness, and i definitely have snarky streak myself. i have no idea about the general tone on the other blog. i know i've read 2-3 posts over there before, and perhaps scanned a few comments but don't recall. however, on gary's blog, my opinion is that abby would occasionally cross that line. alas, i don't have any examples from abby, and she's certainly subtle about it, not the in-your-face snark of many, and it's quite possible that i misinterpreted her, it being mostly anon and text only. so sans a specific example, and due to the fact that she's not really the problem anyway, and i generally think she's a decent person most of the time even when i disagree with her, i suggest we let her as an example rest.

    re: topics
    wasn't aware of the breadth of topics. whatever few posts i checked out in the past led me to the impression that it was primarily religious, and/or religious in ways i don't find interesting or useful, so i haven't been back. certainly atheists have opinions on all those topics. whether one can find people with countering views that one can have an actual conversation with, rather than stating talking points or scripture back and forth, is a different question.


  23. [Part 1/3]
    re: “First off, let me apologize for my own slightly snarky answer in my last paragraph of my last comment.”

    no problem. i actually got a bit of a chuckle out of “Surely atheists have opinions on those topics as well?”, altho if the entire tone of our conversation had been antagonistic, or one of not paying attention to what the other person actually says, something like that may have been irritating or inflammatory.

    re: “I just wanted to say that I have enjoyed talking to you.”

    likewise, i enjoyed having a civil discussion with you. sadly, such a comment should be the assumed standard and a statement of the obvious, rather than a rare compliment.

    re: “Secondly, I would encourage you to go over to the blog and just skim through the titles of his recent posts “

    i just did visit again and skim 2-3 pages worth of posts, and read a couple, including comments. however, i'm not likely to return, given time constraints.

    why? eg, the article on ferguson: “Since postmodernists believe there is no objective truth, …”

    many fundamentalist christians claim that they have the unchanging moral truth on their side, and that anyone who disagrees with them, or their interpretation of the bible, is simply wrong, because god said so.

    and yet, an honest review of history and the bible would show there are quite a few biblical injunctions in leviticus that are no longer followed, slavery is no longer condoned, and the new testament admonitions against divorce are similarly ignored today. and the flat earth and/or geocentric vs heliocentric models of the universe have also changed over time.

    and yet they will still argue with a straight face that the bible is “object truth.” or that “moral truth” is unchanging and that they have it, and the only alternative is pure chaos and “everyone according to their own opinion”, and thereby try to exempt themselves and their interpretation of the bible from scrutiny. if you've ever watched such arguments, they tend to run in circles and become pointless rather quickly. whether it's because god changed his mind, or it was misinterpreted before, the end result is the same — “objective morality” or “objective truth” changes over time.

    reading the rest of the comments, i see similar patting themselves on the back, rather than honest attempts to understand differing perspectives.

    i realize this may sound like reading quite a lot into a single comment, so let me step back to my broader view.


  24. [Part 2/3]

    [repeated from prior part: i realize this may sound like reading quite a lot into a single comment, so let me step back to my broader view.]

    the housing bubble was obvious to me way back in 2003. in fact, i'm surprised that they could keep expanding it for another 3 years after that. so our current economic problems have been a long time in the making.

    and yet, during the run-up, the issues were simply never discussed in the mainstream. so for the past decade, part of my time has been trying to understand why people have been so oblivious to what is rather obvious to me.

    i think the biggest issue facing the country right now is the ongoing bailout of wallstreet, and ongoing and likely to get much worse financial fallout from that. still lots of pain ahead, and very little of the pain will fall on the people that caused the problems. and both parties of the political class are owned by wall street.

    millions of people have been foreclosed on and evicted, millions more are upside down on their mortgage, and many other millions have lost their jobs. at most, a few thousand people are directly affected by the riots, and many of those could avoid them by leaving if they chose.

    i don't think our problems are caused by consumerism, or lack of god in schools, or gay marriage, or illegal immigrants/undocumented workers, or global warming, or putin/russia or china. our problems are caused by an out-of-control, above-the-law financial system, and a political class unwilling or unable to reign them in. quadrupling the base money supply since 2008 will eventually cause even more pain for the middle class and the poor than it already has. in short — you ain't seen nothing yet. and it's a marathon, not a sprint.

    and yet, i see people puffing themselves up with righteous indignation, expending a great deal of emotional energy, all on these (to me) tangential issues, or symptoms of the problem not the problem itself. i strongly suspect this is a strategy of divide and conquer, so ably practiced by elites everywhere.

    if you watch the people concerned about global warming, they seem to gloss over the fact that climate has varied in cycles over very long periods of time, and tend to concentrate on the “hockey stick” increase in just the current cycle, ignoring all the others. and watch the vitriol when someone challenges them on it. and yet, one one blog i saw someone post that they were going to fly to visit grandma, despite the carbon footprint of that, but they felt a little guilty for it. people came out of the woodwork to tell them it was ok, grandma's are important. similar to the free pass that al gore is given for his 30k/yr utility bill. it's a religious belief: bible => inerrant computer model of the climate, despite the fact that the computer model doesn't explain prior cycles before industrialization; salvation thru proper belief (which is easy), not thru works (ie, giving up your car, giving up flying to visit grandma); and tribal attacks against anyone who dares to question you.

    you can see a similar dynamic among Keynesian economists, who view the solution to every economic problem was printing more money.

    and so that one comment about “objective truth”, and reading the other comments, tells me that these people are not in general trying to solve the problem by changing their own behavior, they're trying to pat themselves on the back for being “right”.


  25. [Part 3/3]

    in case you're interested, one of the few religious blogs i read is
    while i'm not religious, and i don't agree with him all the time on his politics, and rarely comment, he strikes me as someone serious about overcoming his innate tribalistic instincts. and he usually makes me think.

    what i find interesting about gary's blog is, that i watched him starting about a year ago, after he started visiting an atheist's blog. between that blog (since removed), and gary's own blog, and a couple other blogs where gary also commented, i got to watch a real-time deconversion, a real-time process of someone changing their world view. it was/is fascinating, both to watch his views change, and to watch the reaction of fundamentalist christians in the comments, egging him on back when he was a christian arguing with atheists, and then trying various good cop/bad cop and fear-based tactics after he became a deist.

    in practice, there are very few people that change their minds on various topics based on arguments presented by other people, regardless of whether it's economic, religious, or political views. we tend to disregard any data that doesn't fit our preconceived notions.

    so, i spend my time watching the financial system, as that's the harbinger of problems. and also watching various “tribes” and their squabbles, as those are the fault-lines that are dividing our society, and where the problems will likely surface.

    unfortunately, reality is rearing it's ugly head, and our erroneous preconceived notions are about to bite us in the butt as a society. as Robert Louis Stevenson said: “Everybody, soon or late, sits down to a banquet of consequences.” bon appetite!


  26. @ anon re: “I apologize for posting that comment calling Gary a liar”

    thanks for the apology, (altho i'm not the one offended.)

    i don't know that your comment was any more/less inflammatory than any of the other anon comments since the banning, it was just the one at hand that illustrated my point. so sorry to seemingly single you out, when there are certainly other comments worthy of being highlighted for inflammatory rhetoric. (unfortunately, given that many of the comments are anon, it's not clear even which comments are made by the same person, and which made by different people, making it even harder to call anyone out for their behavior, particularly repetitive bad behavior rather than a single instance.)

    and your comment is one in a long line of relatively abusive comments gary has received over the last 6 months or so, since he deconverted, and hence some of the reaction was really due to prior transgressors.


  27. Dittos on Paul McCain, but it shouldn’t cause you to leave the LCMS. The LCMS is in dire need of all of your prayers that she may stay the true confessional Lutheran church that she mostly still is. As far as people of ill-will inside her… this is still a fallen world, right? They need our prayers also!

    Grüß, a Confessional Lutheran


    1. Hi David. I loved the LCMS. I loved my LCMS church and the people in it.

      I did not leave the LCMS because of Paul McCain. I left the LCMS, kicking and screaming, because I investigated the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus and found it sorely insufficient to continue believing the central claims of Christianity.


  28. Update: Rev. Paul T. McCain died suddenly on Nov. 25, 2020. The president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod put out this statement:

    “Our Lord Jesus has called to Himself our brother and fellow servant in Christ … to await the blessed resurrection unto life everlasting. … The Lord blessed Paul with a passionate zeal for the Gospel as taught in the Scriptures and confessed in the Book of Concord. Join us in prayer for Paul’s wife and children, and his CPH family. Christ is risen! He is risen, indeed!”


  29. I’m rather confused about your confusion. You’ve done nothing but post awful things about the late Rev. Paul McCain but now you’ve posted a memorial condolence? Remember:
    There is nothing nice between that and this concerning this man. I’m not trying to be nasty but trying to understand how you reason with this. I was just recently spiritually broken by an Lutheran Missouri Synod, LCMS pastor of a member congregation but never by Rev McCain nor Dr. Rev. Matthew Harrison. Yes there are pastors in every denomination who have been deceived, in turn they deceive others. Before you know it some of the very members in their care are modeling their behavior and join in on spiritually breaking others. Hopefully we are smart enough to remove ourselves from that fold while praying for them. It’s important that we seek God to place us in another congregation so we do not forsake the assembling of togetherness. One is more of a hypocrite if they send condolences of someone after they passed that they did not respect when that person was alive rather than showing sympathy after the fact.


  30. #Updated-My reply to this man after seeing that he just showed great sympathy for Rev. Paul McCain:
    Gary, (excuse my grammar),
    I’m rather confused about your confusion. You’ve done nothing but post awful things about the late Rev. Paul McCain but now you’ve posted a memorial condolence? Remember:
    There is nothing nice between that blog and this one, on any oyour sites, fconcerning this man. I’m not trying to be nasty but trying to understand how you reason with this.
    I was just recently spiritually broken by an Lutheran Missouri Synod, LCMS pastor of a member congregation along with a few members under his care. I’ve never once been offended by Rev McCain nor Dr. Rev. Matthew Harrison. I wish you would retract many of your statements as they do not reflect the truth of those you so boldly called out.
    Yes there are pastors in every denomination who have been deceived, in turn they deceive others. Before you know it, some of the very members in their care are modeling their behavior and join in on spiritually breaking others. That or they attract new members that are aligned with their thinking. Hopefully we are smart enough to remove ourselves from that fold while praying for them. It’s important that we seek God to place us in another congregation so we do not forsake the assembling of togetherness. One is more of a hypocrite if they send condolences of someone after they passed, that they did not respect much less like when that person was alive rather than showing sympathy after the fact. I have no shame in not sharing fake concerns for someone that I could not say the same about when they were alive. The LCMS is in dire need of all of your prayers that she may stay the true confessional Lutheran church that she mostly still is. As far as people of ill-will inside her… this is still a fallen world, right? They need our prayers also!

    Another example: this is like having disrespect for someone who abused you the point of breaking you but you finally got out from under their control and you see it for what it is. So your not gonna say nice things to them or about them even if you find it in your heart to forgive them. Then suddenly they die and you fake tears, you say nice things about them while sending condolences.
    See God knows your heart so why lie to look good? You don’t fake feelings just because someone died. Maybe don’t say nothing nice but don’t say nothing at all instead?


    1. I’m having a hard time understanding what your issue with me is. I posted Rev. Harrison’s “eulogy” of Paul McCain’s recent death without comment. I did so purposely because I wanted to see if others found Harrison’s comment as pathetic and hypocritical as I do, without my comment influencing their reaction. But since you brought it up…

      I personally find it deplorable that President Harrison would lavish praise on this man upon his death, but never had the courage to publicly confront his shameful behavior while alive. Does the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod have no standards of behavior for their pastors and leaders??

      If you think I’m going to take down this post now that McCain is dead, think again. It is a warning to all self-righteous peddlers of fundamentalist religion that their obnoxious, offensive reputation will live on long after they have left the scene.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I apologize for the absence of my understanding. I do understand very well now and I do agree with what you have posted. I have no right to ask anything of you but if you see fit then I implore of you for your help. I had believed that my knowledge was vast but now because of an offense committed to me by the church, I know I have very little knowledge in this situation. However with the help of a lawyer and a different LCMS pastor I have discovered that I have rights. Any assistance you are willing to provide would be greatly appreciated. I will blog about the whole situation soon. Other than that you have my email.


          1. I think you might be right but I still believe in God but I don’t to go anywhere to learn about Him. I don’t have to places where certain people are to worship Him. I have my own brain. I almost want to say that religion is what’s wrong with world. I have God in me and I can question thing’s and He understands that I will have questions and like a loving Father HE wants me to trust Him enough to confide in Him. Churches, organizations, preachers they judge you if you question anything and they really hurt you if you disagree on any 1 thing… that’s when the mobbing starts. I’ll stay away.


  31. I found this when searching for Paul’s obit, last week. I was interested to hear about this side of him, as I didn’t know him from his internet-troll-fandom. Didn’t shock me one bit. He lied right to my face one day, about something completely trivial, something no normal person would’ve lied so blatantly about. I was really confused, because I knew he was a “man of the cloth”, as they say. I thought to myself: “Well that’s not a very Christian thing to do!”. Kinda a weird guy.

    Anyway, this blog is really hard to read with all the quotes getting smushed up like that. And it’s hard to decipher who’s who in the quotes. Just FYI.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. In order to make the post more readable, I had to delete some of the internet comments about McCain because I could not change their formatting to make them appear on my blog in a readable fashion. However, there are still enough comments to recognize a pattern: McCain was NOT a good representative of the LCMS. Shame on the LCMS leadership for letting him get away with such obnoxious behavior for so many years.

      Jesus must be rolling over in his grave.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s