All posts by Tony

I Side with the Jesus Before Christianity and the Jesus Beyond Christianity. I do not side with the Jesus Of Christianity

Jesus did not come to convince humanity that God needed to be persuaded to love. He came to reveal that love was the very nature of God.

Guest post by Glenn Regular

When I say, “I side with the Jesus before Christianity and the Jesus after Christianity, but I do not side with the Jesus of Christianity,” I am not rejecting Jesus. I am endeavouring to distinguish between the Jesus revealed in the Bible and the many contradicting images of Jesus that Christianity has constructed through centuries of denominational interpretation, institutional traditions, theological systems, cultural assumptions, and human agendas.

The Jesus before Christianity is the Jesus who walked among humanity, revealed the heart of God, announced the Kingdom of God, and called people into a transformed way of living. The Jesus after Christianity is the living Christ who cannot be confined, controlled, or owned by any religious institution. The Jesus of Christianity, as often presented throughout history, is often a Jesus filtered through religious traditions, religious biases, rather than the Jesus who first reveals the unchanging characteristics of His loving Father.

The Jesus before Christianity did not come to establish another religious system competing with the religions of the world. He did not arrive with a blueprint for buildings, denominations, religious hierarchies, political influence, or institutional power. Of political dominance, He came proclaiming the Kingdom of God. His message was not about creating a religion called Christianity but about revealing a new reality in which humanity could know God as Father and awaken to their true identity in relationship with Him.

Jesus announced, “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15). The good news was not just a religious transaction or a promise of escape from hell-fire punishment. It was the announcement that God was reconciling creation to Himself and that a new humanity was being birthed through Christ. Humanity was chosen by God before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, Jesus came to reveal what God is like and what humanity was created to become.

The Jesus before Christianity was not found among the powerful and religiously elite but among the broken, the overlooked, and the rejected. He touched lepers when others avoided them. He ate with sinners when others condemned them. He welcomed children when others dismissed them. He spoke with women when religious culture marginalized them. He showed compassion toward outsiders and exposed the hypocrisy of those who used religion to elevate themselves above others.

Jesus’ greatest conflicts were not with those who had no religion but with those who had turned religion into a barrier between humanity and God. He challenged the religious leaders of His day because they had confused knowledge about God with knowing God. They had Scripture but missed the heart of the One Scripture revealed.

Jesus said, “You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Mark 7:13). His warning was not against seeking God but against allowing human traditions to replace the living voice and character of God. Christianity can preserve words while losing the heart behind those words. It preaches doctrine while neglecting mercy. It can defend beliefs while failing to embody love. What transpired was that religion shrouded the realization that the rooted identity of humanity was in God before the worlds were formed, deceiving them that their identity was rooted in Adam, causing them them to think of themselves as being born fitted for hell.

The Jesus before Christianity revealed a God radically different from the god of Christianity. He revealed a Father who seeks the lost, restores the broken, forgives enemies, and loves without boundaries. Jesus declared, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). The ultimate revelation of God is not found in human speculation but in the person of Jesus Himself.

The Christian gospel produces fear, hatred, exclusion, superiority, and condemnation must be questioned as to whether its adherents are seeing the God revealed by Jesus or a god shaped by human imagination. Jesus did not come to convince humanity that God needed to be persuaded to love. He came to reveal that love was the very nature of God.

The Jesus after Christianity is the living Christ who continues beyond every religious structure built around His name. Christianity may speak about Christ, but Christ is greater than Christianity. No denomination, movement, theological system, nation, or institution can claim ownership over Him. Jesus belongs not to a religious tribe but to humanity.

Paul wrote, “Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:11). The risen Christ cannot be imprisoned within human categories. He is not the possession of one tradition, one culture, or one interpretation. He is the living revelation of God’s purpose for creation.

The tragedy of Christianity throughout history is that it has often attempted to protect Jesus by controlling Him. It has sometimes created boundaries around the One who came to break down walls. It has sometimes emphasized being right over being loving, defending doctrines over demonstrating compassion, and preserving institutions over embodying the Kingdom.

Jesus never said the world would recognize His followers by their ability to win arguments, defend religious systems, or enforce moral codes. He said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35). Love was not a secondary teaching of Jesus; it was the evidence that His followers had truly understood Him.

The Jesus of Christianity, as often presented, has become a Jesus shaped by human fears and desires. Some portray Him primarily as a judge waiting to condemn rather than the Savior seeking to restore. Some use His name to justify political power, nationalism, wealth, exclusion, or division. Some make allegiance to a religious system the measure of faithfulness rather than a transformed life of love, humility, and compassion.

But the Jesus revealed in Scripture says, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matthew 9:13). He continually moved toward people rather than away from them. He entered places religious people avoided. He embraced those society rejected. He demonstrated that the heart of God is not found in separation from humanity but in God moving toward humanity in love.

To side with the Jesus before Christianity and the Jesus after Christianity is to return to the simplicity of His invitation: “Follow me.” Jesus did not say, “Build a system around me.” He did not say, “Create institutions in my name.” He did not say, “Defend my reputation through religious conflict.” He said, “Follow me.”

Following Jesus means allowing His life to redefine our understanding of God, ourselves, and one another. It means recognizing that the Kingdom He proclaimed is not built on fear but on love, not on domination but on service, not on exclusion but on reconciliation.

The Jesus before Christianity revealed the heart of the Father. The Jesus after Christianity continues to reveal that same heart to the world. The question confronting humanity is not simply whether we believe in Jesus, but whether we are willing to encounter the Jesus who stands beyond religious assumptions and allows Him to transform us.

The greatest challenge is not discovering Jesus. The greatest challenge is letting go of the versions of Jesus Christianity has created so that we can clearly see the Jesus who has always been there.

– Glenn Regular, used here with his kind permission

I Side with the Jesus Before Christianity and the Jesus Beyond Christianity. I do not side with the Jesus Of Christianity

Jesus did not come to convince humanity that God needed to be persuaded to love. He came to reveal that love was the very nature of God.

A Guest post by Glenn Regular

When I say, “I side with the Jesus before Christianity and the Jesus after Christianity, but I do not side with the Jesus of Christianity,” I am not rejecting Jesus. I am endeavouring to distinguish between the Jesus revealed in the Bible and the many contradicting images of Jesus that Christianity has constructed through centuries of denominational interpretation, institutional traditions, theological systems, cultural assumptions, and human agendas.

The Jesus before Christianity is the Jesus who walked among humanity, revealed the heart of God, announced the Kingdom of God, and called people into a transformed way of living. The Jesus after Christianity is the living Christ who cannot be confined, controlled, or owned by any religious institution. The Jesus of Christianity, as often presented throughout history, is often a Jesus filtered through religious traditions, religious biases, rather than the Jesus who first reveals the unchanging characteristics of His loving Father.

The Jesus before Christianity did not come to establish another religious system competing with the religions of the world. He did not arrive with a blueprint for buildings, denominations, religious hierarchies, political influence, or institutional power. Of political dominance, He came proclaiming the Kingdom of God. His message was not about creating a religion called Christianity but about revealing a new reality in which humanity could know God as Father and awaken to their true identity in relationship with Him.

Jesus announced, “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news” (Mark 1:15). The good news was not just a religious transaction or a promise of escape from hell-fire punishment. It was the announcement that God was reconciling creation to Himself and that a new humanity was being birthed through Christ. Humanity was chosen by God before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, Jesus came to reveal what God is like and what humanity was created to become.

The Jesus before Christianity was not found among the powerful and religiously elite but among the broken, the overlooked, and the rejected. He touched lepers when others avoided them. He ate with sinners when others condemned them. He welcomed children when others dismissed them. He spoke with women when religious culture marginalized them. He showed compassion toward outsiders and exposed the hypocrisy of those who used religion to elevate themselves above others.

Jesus’ greatest conflicts were not with those who had no religion but with those who had turned religion into a barrier between humanity and God. He challenged the religious leaders of His day because they had confused knowledge about God with knowing God. They had Scripture but missed the heart of the One Scripture revealed.

Jesus said, “You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Mark 7:13). His warning was not against seeking God but against allowing human traditions to replace the living voice and character of God. Christianity can preserve words while losing the heart behind those words. It preaches doctrine while neglecting mercy. It can defend beliefs while failing to embody love. What transpired was that religion shrouded the realization that the rooted identity of humanity was in God before the worlds were formed, deceiving them that their identity was rooted in Adam, causing them them to think of themselves as being born fitted for hell.

The Jesus before Christianity revealed a God radically different from the god of Christianity. He revealed a Father who seeks the lost, restores the broken, forgives enemies, and loves without boundaries. Jesus declared, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). The ultimate revelation of God is not found in human speculation but in the person of Jesus Himself.

The Christian gospel produces fear, hatred, exclusion, superiority, and condemnation must be questioned as to whether its adherents are seeing the God revealed by Jesus or a god shaped by human imagination. Jesus did not come to convince humanity that God needed to be persuaded to love. He came to reveal that love was the very nature of God.

The Jesus after Christianity is the living Christ who continues beyond every religious structure built around His name. Christianity may speak about Christ, but Christ is greater than Christianity. No denomination, movement, theological system, nation, or institution can claim ownership over Him. Jesus belongs not to a religious tribe but to humanity.

Paul wrote, “Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:11). The risen Christ cannot be imprisoned within human categories. He is not the possession of one tradition, one culture, or one interpretation. He is the living revelation of God’s purpose for creation.

The tragedy of Christianity throughout history is that it has often attempted to protect Jesus by controlling Him. It has sometimes created boundaries around the One who came to break down walls. It has sometimes emphasized being right over being loving, defending doctrines over demonstrating compassion, and preserving institutions over embodying the Kingdom.

Jesus never said the world would recognize His followers by their ability to win arguments, defend religious systems, or enforce moral codes. He said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35). Love was not a secondary teaching of Jesus; it was the evidence that His followers had truly understood Him.

The Jesus of Christianity, as often presented, has become a Jesus shaped by human fears and desires. Some portray Him primarily as a judge waiting to condemn rather than the Savior seeking to restore. Some use His name to justify political power, nationalism, wealth, exclusion, or division. Some make allegiance to a religious system the measure of faithfulness rather than a transformed life of love, humility, and compassion.

But the Jesus revealed in Scripture says, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matthew 9:13). He continually moved toward people rather than away from them. He entered places religious people avoided. He embraced those society rejected. He demonstrated that the heart of God is not found in separation from humanity but in God moving toward humanity in love.

To side with the Jesus before Christianity and the Jesus after Christianity is to return to the simplicity of His invitation: “Follow me.” Jesus did not say, “Build a system around me.” He did not say, “Create institutions in my name.” He did not say, “Defend my reputation through religious conflict.” He said, “Follow me.”

Following Jesus means allowing His life to redefine our understanding of God, ourselves, and one another. It means recognizing that the Kingdom He proclaimed is not built on fear but on love, not on domination but on service, not on exclusion but on reconciliation.

The Jesus before Christianity revealed the heart of the Father. The Jesus after Christianity continues to reveal that same heart to the world. The question confronting humanity is not simply whether we believe in Jesus, but whether we are willing to encounter the Jesus who stands beyond religious assumptions and allows Him to transform us.

The greatest challenge is not discovering Jesus. The greatest challenge is letting go of the versions of Jesus Christianity has created so that we can clearly see the Jesus who has always been there.

– Glenn Regular, used here with his kind permission

First Solo – Thirty Years On

This entry is part 24 of 24 in the series Beautiful Destroyers
I commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of my First Solo Flight by reblogging this 2016 piece describing the great event!

Thirty years ago today, I flew my First Solo in a light aircraft, thus joining the ‘Fraternity of Pilots’, one of the select few people who has flown an aircraft all by themselves. This is a unique event in a Pilot’s career, indeed in a person’s life. It only happens once, and it is a flight I will remember forever. Here, then I reblog an article I wrote describing my First Solo, to try and communicate just how special it was.

Cleared for takeoff – here we go!


“…and I was being chased by at least three Focke-Wulf 190s…”

“What, in a Tempest? Couldn’t you just outrun them?”

“Well, no, it wasn’t like that you see…..carry on, you’re doing fine….”

What an honour, having veteran flying instructor, senior flight examiner and war veteran Rufus Heald have me fly him for my pre-solo check ride. This is the final check by a senior instructor, to see if he agrees with your Instructor that you are ready to take an aeroplane up by yourself for the first time – the First Solo. And what a real gentleman Rufus was, taking my mind off my nerves by regaling me with war stories – albeit stories about being chased by German fighters!

But I have to be honest and say that in some ways I kind of felt like I couldn’t wait to get him out of the aeroplane so I could go flying by myself for the first time ever. Rufus, if you read this, please accept my apologies, although I am absolutely sure you understand![1]

‘Any questions?’

‘Just the one, Rufus: if some clot decides to prang a Dash-8 [an airliner] right on the runway intersection, what do I do?’

‘No problem. Just follow the A38 eastwards all the way to Exeter, and land there’

‘Oh, ok, thanks.’ A sobering thought, that; if that happened, then my first solo would turn into my first solo cross-country flight, but fortunately that doesn’t happen. Good job too; I haven’t started my navigation training yet.

‘Right then, off you go and good luck!’

So, once Rufus had hopped out, it’s interesting to see how quickly the flying discipline comes in. Settle down, now; you’ve got to get this next bit right first time, there’s no second chances. Crumbs, this is scary, do I have to do this? Yes, you do; you’ll never be a Pilot unless you do this.

Right then, time to get cracking. Power checks: check clear behind, set 1,200rpm, check both magnetos on, brakes on and oil temperature and pressure (T’s and P’s) in the green, set 2,000rpm and check brakes holding. Select carburettor heat HOT and rpm drop within limits at less than 175rpm, also no rough running and select carb heat COLD and check the rpm recovers to 2,000, Mag drop right – 100rpm; mag drop left – 100rpm. Max drop 125rpm so within limits; difference between drops less than 50rpm (in fact they were the same) so that’s ok. Mags both on again, suction gauge showing 3”-5” vacuum, ammeter charging, T’s and P’s in the green, Idle check – close throttle, 700rpm, that’ll do, reset 1,200rpm.

Now pre-takeoff vital actions: Trimmer set for takeoff, throttle friction nut set, mixture rich, magnetos both on and master switches both battery and alternator on, pitot heat off, primer IS locked, fuel on and sufficient, flaps up, Instruments: Direction Indicator, artificial horizon, altimeter has the QFE set [pressure setting to indicate height above aerodrome level], T’s and P’s again, landing light goes ON and transponder indicating 7000 and set to Mode C, doors and windows secure, straps tight, carb heat recheck then select COLD, controls full and free movement. Call: ‘Golf Tango Oscar, ready for departure’. I know my Instructor, Tim, is watching from the Tower right next to the Air Traffic Controller, in case anything goes wrong and I need any help. Not that he can give direct help; I think that when flying an aeroplane by yourself, you are more alone, and beyond direct help, than you can ever be in any situation on earth. Another sobering thought.

“Golf Tango-Oscar, backtrack line up Runway 31”

“Backtrack line up 31, Golf Tango-Oscar”

Right, this is it, then. Brakes off, and off we trundle from the holding point onto the active runway, rolling along to the far end of the runway and then turn the Cessna on a sixpence to line up. The familiar sight fills my view: the runway stretching off into the distance, promising imminent adventure, exhilaration, concentration and the ultimate in achievement – that of flying an aeroplane in complete defiance of the gravity that has held our ancestors earthbound for so many thousands of years. But this time I’m on my own; there’s nobody sitting in the right-hand seat and I know that the next five minutes or so are the real beginning of my flying career – if I get it right. But surely Tim and Rufus wouldn’t have let me go if they didn’t think I was up to the task?

Without any delay, the Controller’s voice comes in over the R/T: “Golf Tango-Oscar, clear takeoff runway 31, right hand circuit, surface wind three-three-zero, five knots”. Good, that’s the wind more or less straight down the runway, then; no significant crosswind component. “Clear takeoff 31 right hand, Golf Tango-Oscar”. So, hold the aeroplane on the toe-brakes, power to 2,000rpm and check T’s and P’s in the green, then brakes off heels on the floor [so toes away from the brakes] and full power applied smoothly. Everything happens very quickly but this is what I have been trained for. Check full power: 2,500rpm, T’s and P’s in the green, airspeed building, keeping straight using the feet on the rudder pedals and looking for 65 knots and rotate and….”AIRBORNE! Wooohooo!” the shriek of pure delight erupts spontaneously. I’m flying an aeroplane all by myself for the first time ever and the only way I’m going to live through this is if I get everything right. That’s honestly what I thought, you know! Right, concentrate now, five hundred feet, after-takeoff checks: Fuel is on and sufficient, Engine T’s and P’s green, radio tuned to Plymouth and we’ve got our clearances, Altimeter has the QFE in, landing light stays on because we’re staying in the circuit. Crumbs this aeroplane is performing so much better; we’re at circuit height, 800ft, already and only just turned crosswind. Must be because we’re so much lighter with only one person on board. ONLY ONE PERSON on board and I’m flying an aeroplane on my own oh my goodness this is crazy right settle down and remember your training. Set 2,000rpm for 80kt at 800 ft. And you’re going to land in a couple of minutes so you need to do something about that. Right then, turn downwind, level now with the end of the runway and report “Golf Tango-Oscar downwind to land” Just the one circuit for the first solo. “Golf Tango-Oscar, report final”. “Report final, Golf Tango-Oscar”.

Right that’s him told, now let’s do the downwind checks. Brakes are OFF (check them), undercarriage is fixed down, (and now miming the actions) mixture is rich, fuel on and sufficient, flaps up, instruments QFE in the altimeter – and we’re a little high; must be the excess power – T’s and P’s are good, landing light is on still, carb heat check – no rough running – and then selected COLD, hatches and harnesses secure; yours? Oh, there’s nobody in the right hand seat, now isn’t that weird? Aeroplane feels empty…. ok downwind checks complete, runway in my four-o clock position, time to turn base.

So, a neat 90-degree right turn and now I’m on base, the last part of the circuit before my final approach. Immediate actions: carb heat HOT, power back to 1,700rpm and hold the height as the speed decays; we are already within Vfe [maximum flap extension speed] so flaps to 20 degrees and watch the nose come down. Establish 70kt and 500fpm descent and re-trim the aeroplane. Everything’s looking good except that I’m still too high; now at 900ft instead of 800ft. I know exactly why; it’s because I didn’t have the weight of the instructor aboard (how ‘bout that!) and so the aeroplane had excess power at 2,000rpm so she was climbing slightly. Anyway, never mind why, what are you going to do about it? Nothing for it but to select full flap; save that until you’ve turned final so you’re not trying to do too much at the same time. Don’t let the aeroplane get ahead of you; you need to stay ahead of the aeroplane all the time. Crumbs the workload is so high in the circuit; no wonder they use it as a First Solo test. If you can do circuits, you can do anything. Looking for 70kt on the airspeed indicator for the final turn; plenty of speed, nice and safe. Slow turns on final are what kills people.

So, lined up on final approach and the call, “Golf Tango-Oscar, finals to land”

“Golf Tango-Oscar clear to land runway 31, surface wind three-three-zero, five knots”

“Clear land, Golf Tango-Oscar”, so now it’s all up to me. Let’s have those flaps now: the full 30 degrees of flap come on and pull the power all the way back and she comes down not quite like a piano, but at least like a dive-bomber anyway. Adjusting the rate of descent with power and the airspeed with the nose attitude, this is precision flying at its best. It has to be if you’re going to arrive properly in the right place. Setting 65kt all the way down final, trim it up, nice and easy, coming down nicely. 300ft: pre-landing final check – Cleared to land, runway is clear, happy with the approach (although still a little above the glideslope, still, I’m doing all I can about that), carb heat goes COLD so the engine can deliver full power in a potential go-around situation. Crumbs I love this stuff. Over the hedge now, looking for 60kt but still a little high, we’re safe as it’s a nice long runway. Flare now, nose up and arrest the descent, aeroplane now just a few feet off the runway and hold her off as the airspeed decays, she sinks and Bump she lands but the airspeed is a little too high and so she comes unstuck again because she still wants to fly and I don’t blame her, but re-establish the hold-off and add just a trickle of power to slow the rate of descent so she doesn’t come down like a safe and Bump she’s down again but this time she stays down. “Golf Tango-Oscar: six out of ten for the first one; seven for the second one”. Cheeky so-and-so; I’d like to see him try and do what I’ve just done. Still, Tim most likely put him up to it anyway; sounds like a Tim comment. “Congratulations, well done!” That’s more like it. I’ve just fulfilled the dream of my entire lifetime and as you can imagine I’m feeling pretty good about it. I am now a Pilot; granted I haven’t got my licence just yet – that is still more than nine months away – but it means that I have just joined that very few select people who have flown an aeroplane by themselves. I am now a member of the ‘Fraternity of Pilots’, and nothing will ever be the same again. The feeling is indescribable and I can tell you that it took approximately ten days for the delighted grin to disappear from my face.

To commemorate my first solo, Tim gave me a certificate to mark this milestone event. And because I flew my first solo on the ‘unlucky’ day of Friday the Thirteenth of September, 1996, and I am so completely and totally unsuperstitious, I asked Tim to annotate my certificate accordingly. Here it is:

As you can tell, that flight is etched indelibly on my memory. They say that you never forget your first solo; twenty years down the line and I can attest to that as a fact.

I know this article is a bit techy, but I wanted to put across as realistically as possible what goes through a Pilot’s mind as he is flying, and also to try to share some of the feelings of concentration, discipline, training, exhilaration and panic that the first solo entails. I hope you have enjoyed it.


Here is a video of a young student pilot doing her first solo. Listen out for her comments, like ‘Holy shit, I’m flying an aeroplane on my own!’ Having read my article, perhaps you can appreciate that a little more easily! This is a great little video which gives an intimate insight into flying a light aircraft solo for the first time. Enjoy!


Header image shows me and my son David departing Bodmin Airfield on 2nd May 2009 in my favourite Cessna 152, Golf Tango-Oscar, the aeroplane I flew my first solo in.

There’s an interesting backstory here. I had to get my Pilot’s licence signed by a senior examiner, and we didn’t have one of those at Plymouth Flying School at the time. So I’m thinking, like, Ok, David, let’s go flying at Plymouth and then drive from there to Bodmin to get my licence signed by Phil the Chief Examiner. Hey, hang on a minute, I’ve got an aeroplane! Why not just fly to Bodmin and take my licence with me? So that’s what we did. First time I’d done a landaway since my solo cross-country qualifier in 1997, and the first time I’d ever done a landaway at Bodmin [apart from some touch-and-goes in ‘97 when we had to go to Bodmin because weekend circuits were banned at Plymouth. I was converting onto the PA-28 Warrior and needed some landing practice in one]. It was the warm welcome we got at Bodmin, combined with a great first impression of the airfield and its surroundings, that decided David to do his flying training at Bodmin with Cornwall Flying Club, and then for me to move to Bodmin as my home airfield when Plymouth Airport closed.

The photo shows me performing a classic textbook soft-field take-off: full power, ten degrees of flap, stick right back to get the nose wheel off the ground early and craning my neck to see forward over the cowling. Aircraft gaining speed, looking to lift into ground-effect at about 50kt or so and ‘fly’ about three feet above the runway allowing the airspeed to build to 65kt at which point we rotate into the climb attitude for the climb-away. It all went really well, too….

tango-oscar-at-bodmin-2nd-may-2009

Footnotes

Footnotes
1 Sadly, Rufus passed away a couple of years ago. On the plus side, I am good friends with his son, Nigel, who owns the RV-9A aircraft that I fly 😊

Reblog of “Book Review: ‘Trusting Doubt – A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light’ from seven years ago

This entry is part 39 of 39 in the series The Problems of Evangelicalism
It’s interesting how transferring my blog articles to Substack has brought this to light…

Some of you will know that I have been gradually adding my older blog posts, from my WordPress blog, over to my Substack blog.

In the process of doing this, I have had many interesting opportunities to read blog posts reflecting what I thought at the time (well, obviously they did! 😂) and having a chance to compare the way I thought ‘back then’ to the way I think now.

This blog post I am reblogging here, I am doing because although I have really been laying in to what I see as all the faults of Evangelicalism, still I recognise that the vast majority of the individual people in Evangelical congregations are simply honest, loving, kind and gentle believers whose hearts are turned towards the Lord, and who follow Him with all their hearts. And I have periodically expressed the sentiment, too, that my ‘beef’, as it were, is not with the people (or most of them at any rate) but with the ‘system’.

And seven years ago, although I had not articulated my problems with Evangelicalism as extensively as I have today, still I had problems with it. But even then, I appreciated the good people that are in that faith, and this article has reminded me of that, and indeed that I have always felt like that.

And so here is the review of a book that delivered a scathing criticism of Evangelicalism, and indeed even tried to destroy not only the fakery of some people, but also the genuine, real faith – and its foundation, Jesus – in a storm of surprisingly, well, ‘mean’ prose. Nasty stuff. I’ll let you read the review now, because the words I wrote back then were much more immediate and my near-indignance comes through really well; indignance at the way the author tried completely to shred the faith’s credibility based on criteria that I did not agree with, not even slightly.

Ok. Over to the Tony of seven years ago:


I recently reviewed a book on Amazon, “Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light” by Dr. Valerie Tarico. (I have recently shared some of Dr. Tarico’s work on this blog, here).

I have to say that I didn’t like the book, and this is reflected in my review. In some of my own work, even though I might well present a dark picture of modern Christianity and even of some of its practitioners, I always nevertheless try to mitigate that darkness by giving a hopeful counter-argument of some sort. If this book produces such a counter-argument, then I did not read far enough to find it; I could only read about a third of the way into the book before I gave up for the sake of my own sanity. Also, bearing in mind that I feel like I am presently going into another ‘Dark Night of the Soul[1] (which is nowhere near as bad as it sounds!), if I had gone into such a Dark Night after having read this book, there’s a fair chance I wouldn’t have come out the other side in one piece 😉 Actually, that’s not true; it is God Who carries the believer through the Dark Night (Ps 23:4, Is 46:4, Phil 1:6, Jude 24) but I still I think I have made my point.

I would also say that I do not consider that my incipient Dark Night has influenced my perception of the book. As a scientist, I am well used to viewing things dispassionately and without letting my preconceptions influence my impressions.

Anyway, here is my review, for what it’s worth. It’s presented more or less verbatim from my review on Amazon (with a few extra bits added after further thought):

“Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light”

– by Dr. Valerie Tarico.

I really wanted to enjoy this book, and having read some of Dr. Tarico’s articles on her blog, I looked forward to reading something with some substance and containing interesting, thought-provoking and ultimately upbuilding ideas. However, while I appreciated the clarity, forcefulness and honesty of Dr. Tarico’s arguments, I have to say that there is little to like in this book.

There are a few welcome episodes of dry humour, and a couple of ‘lessons learned’ where, despite the dark and hopeless conclusions she reaches at the end of most chapters, she does manage to salvage a few gems of wisdom and learning.

But, otherwise, the book would be more suitable for those who already believe There. Is. No. God. ; for those seriously considering leaving the Christian faith (and this book would indeed convince you to do so); or for Goths.

After a reasonably upbeat introductory section, the book rapidly goes downhill faster than a well-tossed anvil.

While Dr. Tarico rightly tears into the presuppositions and conflicting assertions of Evangelical doctrines, such as infallibility of scripture, original sin and the inequalities (racism, sexism and other prejudices) expressed in the Bible which are also enacted in today’s society by many Evangelicals, she also examines the rightness and ‘goodness’ of Jesus’s miracles, and even manages to conclude that because Jesus did not heal everyone, that in actual fact his miracles were cruel (she uses that actual word) because not everyone got healed, even if it’s just because they didn’t happen to be there as Jesus walked by.

Wait, what? Really??

Many of the author’s arguments against God being good are based on the premise of what would I do if I was God, which I’m not, and neither is she. We cannot presuppose that we know best. I have to say also that not all the arguments are based in correct axioms nor in logical presuppositions. I am not going to provide examples, because I don’t want to go back into this book again to find them, for reasons which will become clear.

There seems to be an underlying bitterness that everything in the world is not good, or, at least, a bitterness that Christians appear to try to explain away the fact that shit happens and life is full of it. In actual fact, however, everyone with half a mind asks life’s big questions, and nobody, not just the Christians, has the answers. So you can’t blame Evangelicalism for that.

Apart from a few upbeat anecdotes like ones about her grandmother, and even that story she then tears to pieces, there is nothing to rejoice about in this book. Even the good is denigrated and life is portrayed as empty, dark, bleak and hopeless.

I have to say that I got about a third of the way through the book before giving up in despair. The nihilism is simply soul-destroying, if you believe in the soul anyway. I am an upbeat, optimistic and positive person, but at the end of each chapter I felt like going off and drinking myself into oblivion, something I would never normally contemplate. Or maybe piling my car into a very solid tree or concrete wall. Except that my airbags would save my life. Damn.

At the end of every chapter, I thought, Oh well this must get better, after all I agree with a lot of what she says, so let’s keep reading. But no. The darkness and oppression are relentless. There is no place in this book for joy, no place for happiness, and even the spontaneous, joy-filled and free laughter of my severely disabled daughter watching something funny (in another room) seemed totally out of place in the presence of the cloud of darkness that seemed to emanate from this book.

There is no mention of life’s joys, the good things, the light, the scenery, people being nice for the sake of it, kindness, love and laughter. There is no mention of the tremendous good that Christianity has brought into the world, yes, along with all the horrific things it has done as well. The fault-finding of God in this book is unmitigated by any mention of his benefits. Indeed, it is as if the entire picture of God in this book is based entirely on the faulty image of Nasty God as espoused by the Evangelicals, and it doesn’t move on from there but stays down in the dumps. Instead of saying ‘Look the Evangelicals believe in this nasty God, BUT….’ , she instead goes on to explain why God, if he exists, is horrible just as the Evangelicals say, but giving her own reasons based on the bloodiness of nature and that life deals in crap on a daily basis.

No, this book is simply the apparently logic-based ranting of someone who has been damaged by Evangelicalism – as have I – and has gone on to get the qualifications and experience to be able to write an authoritative declamation against Evangelicalism, which undoubtedly deserves it!

But for those who want to see how someone else has approached the deconstruction of faith and come through, well, I didn’t get that far in the book so I don’t know if it has a happy ending, in terms of something solid and hopeful to take home at the end of the book. This book appears to have been written by someone in Fowler’s Stage 4 in the Stages of Faith (Google it) and has not yet come through to Stage 5. Like I said, the book may come through, but I can’t stand to read any more of it. I’m not afraid of logic; I am a professional scientist. I’m not afraid of deconstruction; I have gone through it myself. But it is possible to deconstruct one’s faith without destroying others’ hope too, something this book is more than capable of. But I also want to have a life, and I am not going to waste any more of my valuable time on reading this book of misery. Who would want to do that?

At the very least, the author could have given maybe a sneak preview. Like, hey, it all produces good stuff in the end, you’ll see. But in order to survive to that point, the earlier parts of the book need to have a little more upbeat stuff in there. Or maybe it does not in fact reach a good conclusion; maybe it stays dark all the way through. The occasional touch of humour, while welcome, is simply not enough to hold the reader in a place that is positive enough to encourage the desire to carry on reading. If you think things will get better, you might as well stop reading, because they don’t.

I gave this book a fair chance. I will be removing it from my Kindle, and cheering myself up by singing Python’s ‘Always look on the Bright Side of Life’. While still nihilistic, that song manages to put a funny and even positive spin on it. This book does not.

I did decide to give the book another chance, and actually dipped into later parts of the book to see if I’d misjudged it; to see if it does indeed get better later. It doesn’t. For example, the chapter on feeling the Presence of God, and how widespread it is amongst all types of churchgoers, I though would be great. Dr. Tarico begins the chapter on such a high note – like saying, ‘Look, folks, you believe you have a monopoly on God, well, you don’t, because other Christians feel that Presence too, no matter what their denomination’. And this is extremely admirable. But then it all gets shot down in flames as these ‘feelings of God’ are apparently essentially some sort of illusion or, I gathered, wishful thinking. Such a shame – but then I suppose it would appeal to some people who want ‘permission’ to deconstruct. But there is such a finality about each or Dr. Tarico’s conclusions that gives no room for further spiritual progress, at least in any mystical sense, and at least without having a whole raft of rational stuff to fight through. People in later places in their faith walk have learned to hold in tension the logical with the mystical. Neither stance gives a complete picture of reality, so to discount the mystical as illogical (which actually it isn’t; it’s irrational, which is a different thing) is to miss out on a whole slice of life.

I have actually gained something positive from reading the third of the book I did read. It’s this: up until now, I have had difficulty seeing the points of view of Evangelical Christians since I have moved out of their fold. Reading this book, however, has given me a new appreciation – because of the omission of this point from the book – of all the decent, honest and upright people in the Evangelical church, despite their mixed-up thinking, terrible ideas and their stifling, grey dogmatism. In contrast to this book, they really don’t seem so bad after all.

One final thing. If you are contemplating suicide, or if you are prone to depression, then in all seriousness, I strongly advise that you DO NOT read this book. It may well push you over the edge, figuratively or even literally.


“Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light”, by Dr. Valerie Tarico, is available on Amazon both as a paperback and as a Kindle eBook. The eBook was priced at GBP£7.46 at the time of writing. The link to the book is here.

 

Footnotes

Footnotes
1 That Dark Night is the one that I described in my series here.

Love Wins

A profound piece by Andy May

The fire had burned down to coals, and every now and then a little flame would reach up through the wood and disappear again.

Above us, the stars seemed almost too numerous to count. We sat there quietly for a while.

Finally, he said, “I just don’t understand your view.”

I smiled. “Which part?”

“The part where you think everybody eventually comes to God. What about the people who reject Him? What about the people who don’t want Him?”

I poked at the fire with a stick. “I’ve wondered about that too.”

He looked at me. “You don’t sound very certain.”

“I’m certain about God. I’m less certain about all the things we’ve been told we have to believe about Him.”

That got a laugh. “Okay, so tell me what you mean.”

I looked up at the stars. “Let me ask you something. Suppose you really knew God as He actually is. Not the caricature we’ve sometimes created. Not an angry deity waiting to catch you making a mistake. But perfect goodness. Perfect love. No deception. No manipulation. No fear. Nothing hidden.”

“Okay.”

“Would you really choose to be burned alive forever rather than receive that love?” He thought about it. “No.”

“Me neither.”

“But some people would.”

“Maybe. But that’s where I have a question. What part of them wants that?” He frowned. “I mean it literally. What part of a human being looks at perfect Love and says, ‘I would rather experience unimaginable suffering forever’?”

He didn’t answer.

I continued. “Maybe you say, ‘Their free will.’ Fine. I understand that a person can resist love. I do it myself sometimes. We all do. But free will explains the ability to resist. It doesn’t explain why someone would remain eternally resistant to goodness itself.”

He stared into the fire. “So you think people don’t have free will?”

“No. I’m saying free will isn’t an explanation for everything. And certainly not for an eternal, irreversible hatred of God.”

“Maybe they hate God.”

“I can understand somebody hating God right now. People have been hurt. People have been deceived. People have been angry. People have experienced terrible things and blamed God. I understand that.” I threw another piece of wood onto the fire. “But forever? That’s a long time.”

He looked at me. “Exactly.”

The flames rose for a moment. “Think about it. We’re not talking about ten years. Or a hundred. Or a million. We’re talking about an existence in which the person never becomes different, never sees differently, never learns, never heals, never comes to understand, never encounters anything capable of breaking through the resistance.”

“And God respects their choice.”

“That’s another phrase I’ve heard.”

“You don’t buy it?”

“I believe God respects human beings. I don’t believe God’s respect for a damaged choice requires Him to abandon the person forever.”

He nodded slowly.

“Besides, if someone is drowning because they refuse to take your hand, do you say, ‘Well, I respect your decision,’ and walk away?”

“Of course not.”

“Then why would perfect Love be less persistent than we are?”

That one sat between us for a while. The night was quiet except for the fire.

Finally he said, “But what about judgment?”

“Judgment is real.”

“You believe that?”

“Absolutely. I just don’t assume that judgment means God has stopped loving the person being judged. Sometimes love judges precisely because love refuses to leave us as we are.”

“So the fire isn’t the end?”

“Maybe the fire is part of the healing.”

He smiled. “That’s pretty convenient.”

“Maybe. But consider something.” I leaned forward. “Scripture says God is love. Not that God occasionally behaves lovingly. It says God is love. Then it says love never fails.”

I let that hang for a moment. “So I have to ask myself: If God’s love ultimately fails to reach the creature He made, what exactly does ‘love never fails’ mean?”

He looked back at the stars. “And what about the verses that say God wants everyone saved?”

“That’s my point. Paul says God has shut everyone up in unbelief that He might have mercy upon all. Not some. All. And then Paul ends that whole section in wonder. ‘For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things.’ The fire cracked. ‘To whom be glory for ever.’”

He was quiet.

“So you think everyone gets saved because God forces them?”

“No.”

“Then how?”

“I don’t know every detail.”

He laughed. “That’s honest.”

“I think honesty is important here. I don’t need to pretend I’ve got the mechanics of eternity mapped out.” I looked around at the darkness beyond the fire. “I just trust the character of the One who holds it.”

“And you think that’s enough?”

“For me, yes.”

“Even when you don’t understand?”

“Especially then.”

We sat quietly. After a while he said, “But what if you’re wrong?”

I smiled. “Then I’ve spent my life believing that Love is more powerful than hatred, that mercy is bigger than my sin, that Christ actually accomplished something rather than merely making salvation possible, and that God will ultimately accomplish what He intends. I can live with that.”

He laughed. “You really don’t have an answer for everything, do you?”

“Nope.”

“That’s unusual for a theologian.”

“I’ve never claimed to be one.” We both laughed.

Then I looked up again. “Besides, look at those stars.” He followed my eyes. “Imagine the God who made all of that.”

“Yeah.”

“The God who knows every person who has ever lived. Every wound. Every lie. Every fear. Every secret. Every reason someone ran from Him. Do you really think the final word over all those people is going to be, ‘You resisted Me, so I will preserve your resistance forever’?”

He didn’t answer.

I continued quietly. “Or could the final word be something much simpler? Love wins.”

The fire settled back down into glowing coals. Neither of us said anything for a long time. We just sat there beneath His stars.

And somehow, for the first time that night, neither of us seemed quite as interested in having all the answers.

– Andy May, shared here with his kind permission

Hell? No!

This entry is part 38 of 39 in the series The Problems of Evangelicalism

(The above picture is clickable so that you can zoom in to read the smaller parts of the writing!)

As my readers will know, I consider the belief in the post-mortem eternal conscious torment of people in Hell to be the most repulsive doctrine in all of Christendom.

In this magnificent piece, my friend Glenn Regular examines some of the history of the modern use of the Hell doctrine, and also explains, using a real-life story, how damaging it can be to people who believe it.

I was going to call it another Dark Testimony, like all the other Dark Testimonies in this series, but it’s a third-hand story so I can’t really call it a ‘testimony’ as such! Also, I could have added a lot of commentary, but I think I will refrain. Glenn’s writing packs enough of a punch as it is and I would only detract – and distract – from his powerful writing if I did.

Anyway, the piece is long but it is well worth the read and Glenn does indeed keep the reader’s attention. I hope you find the piece to be a blessing!

Peace and Grace to you, and now over to Glenn:


Hell? No!

A Guest Post by Glenn Regular

A false assumption governs modern conservative Christianity: if you do not believe that God will consciously torment billions of human beings in hell-fire for all eternity, you have abandoned the gospel. Preachers declare this from pulpits every Sunday. Theological institutions write it into their doctrinal statements. Well-meaning believers repeat it to children in Sunday School. We are told that eternal conscious torment is the clear, non-negotiable teaching of the Bible, and that to question it is to compromise the absolute authority of the Bible itself.

I defended this view because I was told it was right, but simply saying something is right does not necessarily make it fight. If the doctrine of endless torment were as unmistakable as Christianity claims, faithful followers of Jesus would not have been debating it since the earliest centuries of the church. The historic record shows that the early church held diverse views on judgment, restoration, and the afterlife. The idea of eternal conscious agony was neither universal nor unchallenged in the formative centuries of Christian thought.

What we call orthodoxy today is often nothing more than the loud survival of religious traditions. Over centuries, the Western church turned a complex body of biblical metaphors into a rigid system of post-mortem vengeance. In doing so, it created an engine of spiritual anxiety that has haunted millions of faithful men, women, and children. To understand how we arrived at this moment, we must examine the human toll of this dogma, the historical moments that hardened it into dogma, and the stark contrast between this devilish construct and the person of Jesus Christ.

Consider the story of Jonathan Parrish. Jonathan grew up in a devout, Bible-believing home in suburban Georgia. His family attended an evangelical church three times a week. From his earliest memories, Jonathan loved Jesus. He memorized Bible verses for Sunday school badges, sang hymns with enthusiasm, and listened attentively to his pastor. Yet by the age of seven, Jonathan lived in a state of quiet terror.

Every night followed the same routine. Jonathan lay in bed, staring at the ceiling, gripped by a paralyzing fear that he might die in his sleep. His Sunday school teachers had taught him that a single unconfessed sin could sever his connection to God. If an unrepentant thought slipped through before his heart stopped beating, he would wake up in an ocean of liquid fire where he would burn forever without relief. To protect himself, Jonathan developed an obsessive ritual. He prayed the Sinner’s Prayer dozens of times each evening. He cataloged every thought from his day, asking forgiveness for minor irritations, fleeting moments of selfishness, or forgotten chores. If his mind wandered during the prayer, he started over from the beginning to ensure the transaction was valid.

This was not genuine worship. It was survival. Jonathan was not seeking communion with a loving Father; he was managing a cosmic threat. He viewed God as an omnipotent tyrant who watched for the slightest technical error to justify an eternity of torture.

As Jonathan reached adolescence, the anxiety deepened. Every summer, his church sent youth to week-long camps. The schedule always followed a calculated pattern. The first four days built emotional vulnerability through intense social activities, sleep deprivation, and emotionally charged worship music. On Thursday night, the camp held its signature service. The preacher spoke in vivid detail about the horrors of hell. He described the smell of burning flesh, the sound of weeping and gnashing of teeth, and the absolute finality of the judgment.

The youth leaders lowered the lights, played minor chords on acoustic guitars, and called students forward to accept Christ. Jonathan watched his friends weep in the aisles, overwhelmed by sheer panic. He walked forward every single summer, rededicating his life because he was never entirely sure his previous conversion had taken root. The system demanded absolute certainty while teaching a theology that made certainty psychologically impossible.

Jonathan’s experience is not an isolated oddity. It is the predictable outcome of a theological framework that equates God’s justice with endless violence. When an authority tells a child that the creator of the universe is going to torture most of humanity forever in hellfire the developing mind cannot process that information through the lens of love. It processes it through the lens of trauma.

Psychologists recognize this pattern as religious trauma syndrome. When fear is used as the primary motivator for moral behavior, it damages the human nervous system. It creates chronic hypervigilance, emotional dependency, and deep-seated guilt. Believers trained in this mindset find themselves unable to trust their own moral intuitions. When their natural conscience revolts against the idea of God torturing people forever, they are told that their conscience is fallen and corrupt. They learn to call cruelty justice and terror love.

How did the Western church come to embrace such evil rhetoric of terror? While roots of this theology stretch back through medieval Catholicism and the Latin church fathers, its modern American expression was forged in the fires of the First Great Awakening during the eighteenth century.

On July 8, 1741, a Congregationalist minister named Jonathan Edwards stood before a congregation in Enfield, Connecticut. Edwards was an intellectual powerhouse, a philosopher, and a central figure in the colonial revivalist movement. His sermon that day, titled Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, became one of the most famous pieces of religious rhetoric in Christian history.

Edwards did not deliver this sermon with shouting or theatrical gestures. Historical accounts indicate that he read his manuscript in a calm, level voice, leaning heavily on the pulpit. Yet the words he spoke were engineered to induce acute psychological panic. Edwards wanted his listeners to feel the physical precarity[1].  of their existence over the pit of eternal damnation: “The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.”

Notice the language Edwards chose. God does not merely judge sin; He abhors the human being. The sinner is not a lost child to be sought and rescued, but a loathsome insect suspended over an open furnace. Edwards continued, detailing how God holds humanity by a slender thread while the flames of divine wrath singe and burn that thread, ready at any moment to drop the soul into perpetual agony.

The effect on the Enfield congregation was immediate and devastating. Eyewitnesses recorded that men and women shrieked, groaned, and wept aloud. People clung to the wooden pillars and the backs of pews, feeling as though the floor beneath their feet was physically opening to swallow them into the abyss. Edwards had to stop his sermon multiple times to ask for silence so that his voice could be heard over the cries of his terrified audience.

This sermon set a precedent for American evangelicalism. It shifted the primary focus of Christian preaching away from the early church’s proclamation of the resurrection and the inauguration of God’s kingdom on earth. Instead, it centered the message of Christianity on individual escape from post-mortem torment. The gospel was no longer the declaration that Christ has conquered sin and death; it became a rescue plan from God Himself.

Edwards’s approach established an emotional template that persists to this day:

First, convince the listener that their natural state is an object of divine hatred and disgust.

Second, describe the horrors of eternal torment in vivid, graphic detail to induce acute existential dread.

Third, present Jesus as the only narrow fire escape from the Father’s imminent violence.

Fourth, demand an immediate, emotional conversion experience to secure safety.

This revivalist method spread rapidly across the Western World. It was efficient, it produced immediate measurable conversions, and it filled church rosters. Yet it did so by trading the beauty of the self-giving God of the cross for an angry deity whose wrath could only be appeased by blood.

Modern descendants of this rhetoric appear in various forms. In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, fundamentalist churches developed “hell houses” as alternatives to Halloween haunted attractions. These events walk teenagers through graphic theatrical scenes of suicide, fatal car accidents, botched abortions, and drug overdoses, followed immediately by a depiction of demons dragging the victims into a simulated pit of screaming agony. The goal remains unchanged from Edwards’s day: terrorize the human imagination until the individual surrenders out of self-preservation.

When we turn from the rhetoric of revivalist preachers to the pages of the New Testament, we encounter a fundamentally different reality. We see Jesus of Nazareth walking the dusty roads of Galilee and Judea. His demeanor toward fearful, broken, and morally compromised people stands in direct opposition to the methods of religious terror.

Consider the encounter between Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, recorded in the eighth chapter of John. The religious leaders brought the woman before Him, quoting the law of Moses and demanding her death by stoning. They stood with rocks in their hands, ready to execute divine retribution. If the character of God were accurately reflected by Jonathan Edwards’s sermon, Jesus should have intensified her terror, reminding her of the eternal furnace awaiting her unrepentant soul.

Instead, Jesus knelt down and wrote in the dust. When her accusers slunk away under the weight of their own conscience, Jesus looked up at the woman and spoke words of absolute peace. “Neither do I condemn you,” He said. “Go, and from now on sin no more” (John 8:11). Jesus did not manipulate her emotions through threats of torture. He did not describe her as a loathsome spider. He treated her with dignity, extended unmerited grace, and invited her into a transformed life.

Look at Zacchaeus, the chief tax collector in Jericho. Zacchaeus was an extortionist who grew wealthy by collaborating with the Roman military occupation to exploit his own countrymen. The religious establishment viewed him as an unclean traitor worthy of condemnation. Yet when Jesus saw him sitting in the sycamore tree, He did not threaten him with eternal flames. Jesus said, “Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today” (Luke 19:5).

The hospitality and unconditional acceptance of Jesus broke Zacchaeus’s heart open. Without a single threat of hellfire, Zacchaeus declared that he would give half his goods to the poor and restore fourfold anything he had stolen. Love accomplished in an afternoon what centuries of religious threats could never produce: genuine, lasting repentance from the inside out.

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus reserves His harshest words not for vulnerable sinners, outcasts, or moral failures, but for the religious elite who used fear to maintain their authority. In Matthew 23, Jesus delivers a scathing critique of the scribes and Pharisees, accusing them of shutting the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces and tying up heavy burdens that they themselves refuse to lift. The religious leaders used fear to keep the population subservient. Jesus arrived to break their monopoly on God’s grace.

When Jesus invited the crowds to follow Him, He did not say, “Flee the fires of My Father’s wrath.” He said: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28–30)

The New Testament consistently describes the Christian message as euangelion, a Greek word meaning “good news.” An announcement that God plans to torture the vast majority of His beloved creation for all eternity while rescuing a tiny few “born-again” through hell-fire fear-mongering is not good news. It is the most terrifying news imaginable. The real good news of the gospel is that the Creator has stepped into human history in the person of Jesus Christ to reconcile the world to Himself, forgiving sins and destroying the power of death.

If the doctrine of eternal conscious torment contradicts the gentle, inclusive, self-giving nature of Jesus, why has it remained so central to Christian institutional life for centuries? The answer is simple: fear is the most effective tool for human control ever devised.

From an organizational perspective, a religious system built on unconditional love is difficult to manage. Unconditional love produces free, autonomous individuals who think critically, follow their consciences, and relate to God directly without the need for priestly intermediaries. Free people do not blindly obey institutional mandates. They do not easily submit to authoritarian leadership. They do not give money out of guilt or dread.

A system built on existential fear, however, operates with remarkable efficiency. Fear functions as a psychological lock on the human mind. Consider how the mechanics of religious terror protect an institution:

  1. It prevents critical questioning. When an institution teaches that incorrect doctrine leads straight to hell, congregants become terrified of their own doubts. Asking honest questions about church history, translation errors, or theological contradictions feels like dancing on the edge of the pit. Believers suppress their critical faculties, choosing intellectual blinders over the risk of damnation.
  2. It enforces absolute loyalty to leadership. If the pastor or the church hierarchy holds the keys to eternal safety, their authority becomes unquestionable. Challenging the leadership feels equivalent to challenging God Himself. Spiritual abuse thrives in this environment, as victims fear leaving an abusive church because they have been taught that salvation exists only within their specific theological camp.
  3. It guarantees financial support. History demonstrates that terrified people are generous people. During the Middle Ages, the Western church turned the afterlife into an economic powerhouse through the sale of indulgences, promising that donations would reduce a loved one’s time in purgatory. While Protestantism rejected indulgences, it retained the same psychological lever: support our ministry, spread our message, and help us save souls from hell.
  4. It creates narrow-minded Christians. Fear of the outside world keeps believers safely inside the institutional walls. Non-believers are viewed not merely as neighbors to be loved, but as dangerous, corrupting influences destined for destruction. This us-versus-them mentality creates a high-control environment where leaving the group means losing your entire social, emotional, and spiritual support network.

In this dynamic, the doctrine of eternal torment stops being a purely theological concept. It becomes a social and administrative technology. It maintains the hierarchy, stabilizes institutional budgets, and silences dissent. When a theologian suggests that God might actually succeed in saving all people, the institution reacts with fury not because the biblical text is clear, but because the institution’s primary lever of control has been threatened.

A church that relies on hell to keep its pews full has forgotten how to rely on the beauty of Christ. When fear is the foundation, love becomes impossible, because genuine love requires freedom. You cannot truly love a God whom you are terrified of cross-examining.

To dismantle this architecture of fear, we must recover the ancient, biblical way of reading Scripture through the lens of Jesus Christ. For centuries, theologians have made the mistake of reading Jesus through the Old Testament’s most violent imagery, or through the dark lenses of medieval philosophy. We must invert this approach. We must Jesus be the interpretive factor in of the Bible, He is the image of God and the only one who has seen Him.

The author of Hebrews opens with a radical theological claim: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.” (Hebrews 1:1–3)

The writer does not say Jesus is one of many representations of God. He declares that Jesus is the exact imprint of the Father’s nature. In John 14:9, Jesus looks at His disciple Philip and says plainly, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”

This is the foundation of Christian theology. If you want to know what God looks like, you look at Jesus. If you want to know how God responds to His enemies, you look at Jesus on the cross, praying for the Roman soldiers driving nails through His flesh: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). If you want to know how God exercises justice, you look at the Shepherd who leaves the ninety-nine safe sheep to search the dark wilderness until He finds the one that was lost (Luke 15:4).

God does not have a dual personality. There is no dark, vengeful Father hiding behind a gentle, loving Son. The Son and the Father are one in purpose, character, and essence. Therefore, if a doctrine presents God acting in a way that contradicts the character of Jesus Christ, that doctrine must be rejected as an unfaithful human construct.

A God who commands His followers to love their enemies, bless those who curse them, and forgive seventy times seven, while He turns around and tortures His own enemies for trillions of years in unquenchable fire, is a moral contradiction. It creates a deity who fails to live up to His own moral standards. If human beings are called to be holy as God is holy, and God exercises eternal retaliation, then human vengeance would be holy. But Jesus taught the opposite. He commanded enemy-love precisely because that is how the Father acts: He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust (Matthew 5:45).

The Apostle John summarized the entire nature of the divine life in three simple words: “God is love” (1 John 4:8). He did not write that love is one of God’s many attributes, or that love must constantly compete with an opposing attribute called retributive justice. Love is who God is. His justice is not the opposite of His love; His justice is the restorative working of His love, healing what is broken and putting right what has gone wrong.

Furthermore, John directly addresses the psychological disease of religious terror: “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.” (1 John 4:18)

A theology that cultivates fear of eternal punishment is fundamentally immature, incomplete, and contrary to the spirit of Christ. Fear belongs to systems of human punishment, not to the heart of the Father revealed in the Son.

The New Testament overflows with sweeping declarations of cosmic redemption that cannot be squeezed into the narrow framework of eternal conscious torment. Consider the scope of these apostolic claims: Paul writes that through the cross of Christ, God was pleased “to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Colossians 1:20).

He declares that “as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). The scope of the life in Christ is just as universal as the scope of death in Adam.

He states that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4), and that the living God is “the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (1 Timothy 4:10).

He announces that at the name of Jesus “every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:10–11). In the ancient world, to confess Christ as Lord was an act of genuine spiritual worship, not a coerced concession extracted under torture. I refuse to build a doctrine of God that nullifies these clear declarations. I refuse to worship a deity who lacks the power, the will, or the love to accomplish the cosmic restoration promised throughout the Scriptures.

Jonathan Parrish eventually walked away from the terrifying faith of his childhood. For years, he lived as an agnostic, unable to reconcile the cruelty of his church’s theology with any recognizable form of goodness. Yet in his thirties, Jonathan encountered the writings of early church leaders who saw the cross not as a shield against an angry God, but as the triumphant victory of divine love over death, darkness, and decay.

He discovered that he was not required to check his moral conscience at the door of the church. He realized that the terror keeping him awake as a seven-year-old boy was not the Holy Spirit; it was the voice of a man-made tradition that traded the gospel of peace for the mechanics of control.

The journey toward spiritual liberation begins by naming the terror for what it is. The doctrine of endless conscious torment is not the heart of people of the Jesus Way. It is an ancient religious distortion that has wounded millions of souls and slandered the character of God. The cross of Jesus Christ tells a different story. It reveals a God who would rather die at the hands of His enemies than destroy them; a God whose mercy triumphs over judgment; a God whose love never fails.

– Glenn Regular, shared with his enthusiastic permission.


Note: Glenn is an American man, so I have left his American spellings unaltered in this piece!

Footnotes

Footnotes
1 A condition of existence without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare – Ed

As Long as Christ is Preached

This entry is part 37 of 39 in the series The Problems of Evangelicalism

Well. A second piece in a row in this series where I am ‘saying something nice’ about Evangelicalism! Read on to find out what I mean 😁

The Problem

I need to be honest here.

I’ve become aware of a creeping unhealthy attitude in my own mind, probably related to my immersion of working on this series about The Problems of Evangelicalism, to which I have been giving much of my attention in my recent writing and thought.

And that unhealthy attitude essentially consists of the idea that I feel that all churches should increasingly be coming round to the point of view of what I see as what God is doing in this time.

It reads almost like a wish-list! And it goes like this:

I would love to see the concept of Grace being fully understood in churches.

I would love to see the end of judgmentalism and ‘sin-policing’ in all its forms.

Related to the above two points, I would love to see an end to Religious legalism and its consequent behaviour-based concepts of righteousness and holiness, as opposed to a lifestyle of walking free in the Spirit.

I would love to see the churches freely welcome people of Lesbian, Gay and other sexualities (LGBTQ+) into their communities with no restrictions; no ‘second-class citizenship’.

I would love to see the disappearance of the mechanisms of puissant, testosterone-driven male authority and submission (of both women and other ‘lesser’ members of a congregation), and its consequential emphasis on heteronormative leadership couples with the wife in ‘full submission’ 🤣

I would love to see the emphasis on ‘giving’ (of [especially] money, time and resources) to the church to shift from a position of obligation to a position of giving cheerfully and without compulsion.

Most of all, I would love to see the end of the concept of ‘Eternal Conscious Torment’ (ECT), also known as ‘Hell’ in mainstream Christianity[1].

And in some places, the people in various churches and denominations are indeed coming around to adopting attitudes more in line with the character of Jesus as revealed in the Scriptures, and as revealed to those who walk with Him. I know that my ‘wish list’ is entirely personal – although I do believe that it is from Jesus – but I know that not everyone will share my views. At least, not yet, and maybe even never. Plus of course I could well be wrong in some of my wish list items! Although those wishes are admirable, they cannot be used as a basis for cancelling churches in general where those churches fail to meet up with those ideals.

What all this meant for me was that I found it hard to accept that people, and especially new converts, were being given dodgy doctrines right from ‘square one‘ about Jesus and what it means to follow Him. Rules and regulations, expected behaviour patterns, that sort of thing. I am always, well almost fearful that new converts should be subjected to the sort of Religious steering that Jesus was talking about when He spoke to the Pharisees in these terms:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell [Gehenna] as you are!” (Matthew 23:15).

Let’s face it, that’s not a good starting point for anyone who is just beginning their walk with Jesus. Hence my ‘fear’ for them[2] and, given that my background and experience was replete with almost exactly that kind of behaviour from dodgy leadership, my ‘fears’ are indeed justified, at least from a personal point of view.

So, my problem was that I almost didn’t want people to come into such an imperfect church and be ‘contaminated’ by bad attitudes. I’ve been in the faith long enough to know that this is indeed what happens; that the purity and awe of a person’s initial encounter with Jesus is soon overlaid with layers of Religious baggage. At its extreme, the baggage can choke the new life out of a person as Jesus describes of the thorns and weeds in the Parable of the Sower, in Matthew 13:7.

And that’s not something I’d wish on any new convert.

Realisation

My realisation that this was a problem in my own attitudes was highlighted when I met up with the leader of a local church the other day and had a really good discussion on things related to these ideas. Part of the story is related in my recent article here.

To recap, I had gone down to meet that leader – let’s get the anonymity stuff out of the way, shall we, and make up some fake names? Makes it a lot less awkward than just saying ‘the leader’! Let’s say for the purposes of the story that it was a CofE church, and that the leader was a lady Vicar called Annie 🤣 – and we talked about their practices and history in that church, amongst other things.

One of the things we talked about was that they run an Alpha Course, which is a programme of Christian evangelism. Past Courses had proved so popular that, even over the summer break, congregants wanted to run another Course once the previous one had finished. Annie was dubious about whether it would fly what with it being the holiday season and all, but she made the very reasonable proviso that yes the Course would run as long as they could get ten people to come along. Kind of to make it worthwhile, of course.

They got over fifty!

And so the Course is going ahead, and is running as I write this.

Annie said that it is obvious that people are hungry to learn about Jesus. People are thrilled with meeting Him – as you would expect, of course![3] – and, as an aside, many of them are also raving about the brilliant series ‘The Chosen‘ because it depicts the Bible stories about Jesus so well. (And Jonathan Roumie, who plays Jesus, plays Him brilliantly too). They just have a real hunger to learn more about Jesus – and that’s always going to be a good thing!

I need to add in a little personal context here. The Alpha Course was invented at Holy Trinity, Brompton (HTB), an Evangelical-oriented Church of England congregation. I myself attended an Alpha Course at the end of 1995 and into early 1996, just after I’d moved down here to Devon from Leeds. The Course I went to contained mainstream Evangelical doctrine and so of course nowadays (having moved further down my path) I would not identify with some of what was presented there. Naturally, the Course may well have changed somewhat by now; I have no data on its current content; its ‘syllabus’ if you like. But still, I must admit to feeling more than a little antipathy towards the Course while Annie and I were discussing it.

So over the last few days since that conversation with Annie, the Spirit has been speaking to me about my attitudes here. Look, She’s saying, people are being introduced to Jesus. People are realising how much He loves them and what He did for them. Annie specialises in teaching people how to be disciples of Christ. How to follow Him. How to hear Him, How to read the Bible.

So how can I argue with that? And what would give me the right to do so, anyway?

Granted, I may not agree entirely with the doctrines being taught in Alpha, but who’s to say I’m right? The thing is that, whatever the motivation, whatever the background, the principle is this:

As long as Christ is being preached, then it’s all good.

St. Paul said, “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached” (Phil 1:18)

If it’s good enough for St. Paul, then it’s good enough for me. Indeed, if it’s good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me! I really can’t argue with that; nor would I want to. If Jesus is being preached, and people are being introduced to Him, then I’m thrilled with it. Thank You, Holy Spirit, for leading me into that truth!

Further points

Despite my recent and well-documented disgust at the behaviour of certain local Evangelicals, I have to say that no church is ever perfect. It would seem that Annie’s church is a safer place, because people with ‘differences’ are made welcome there and are fully integrated. But still, there will be flaws; when you’re dealing with humans, there’s no other way it can be!

And granted, St. Paul’s comment in Philippians 1:18 relates more to the motivation behind the people in his time who were preaching Christ, not so much the ‘aftersales’ care idea. But the principle is still the same: so long as Christ is preached, then he’s happy with it.

And so, despite my earlier ‘wish list’ of ways in which I’d like the Church to (as I see it) represent Jesus better, still Christ is being preached, and more people are discovering the joy of knowing Him and being in His presence. And that’s the way it should be. Remember that it’s Jesus’s Church, and He will build it in His own way and in His own time. (Mt 16:18).

I know that there are some churches who preach what I would consider ‘a different gospel'[4]. There are also those who, misusing the same Scripture verses (2Cor11:1ff esp. v.4) would claim that preaching a ‘different Christ’ is also a thing. This doesn’t worry me as this is one of the standard lines that certain nasty Christians use in order to deny others’ faith.

And of course it was clearly a factor that Paul was considering, indeed taking seriously, else he wouldn’t have written about it.

But in reply to that ‘worry’, I would say that, as always, you’ll know them by their fruits. If the fruits are Love, Joy, Peace and all that, then that’s the fruits of the Spirit right there (Gal 5:22-23). if there is righteousness, peace and joy, then that’s the Kingdom of God (Rom 14:17). Where there are miserable Christians trying to deny a true work of God, that’s not only the fruit of the flesh but it’s also a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; ascribing to the enemy what is actually being done by God (e.g. Mt 12:31-32). So, a different Jesus? No. If anything, a ‘different Jesus’ is the one preached by those trying to make Him out to be a bloodthirsty warrior Messiah, which is exactly what the Jews wanted in His times on earth, but which He flat-out refused to fulfil. No, Paul’s Jesus went as far as dying on the Cross for His enemies. That’s the Real Jesus, not the different Jesus. Paul preached Christ Crucified (1Cor1:23); no ‘different Jesus’ would do that. Does the Jesus being preached ‘look like’ the Jesus in the Gospels? Does that preaching bear good fruit? Those are the sorts of questions that a person should ask in order to ascertain the veracity of any Jesus being preached.

Remember also that any ‘fake Jesus’ doesn’t actually and literally exist as any kind of ontological being; it is a figment of someone’s storytelling ability. Like any idol, it’s made of wood or stone or, in this case, words, ideas and concepts, and it lacks any power whatsoever. A fake Jesus would be unable to help a believer stand up to life’s pressures, in terms of them holding fast to anything but the Real Jesus through the storms of life. That’s how you can tell if it’s the real Jesus; think of it as a kind of ‘fruit’ of following Him, if you like. Certainly it’s a tangible effect on a person’s life, when it’s the real Jesus who is in that person’s life, and if that’s missing then the house will fall, as in the Parable of the Wise and the Foolish Builder in Matthew 7:24. This is hinted at in my classic piece ‘Graven Image‘, too, and is also brilliantly described by the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 44:18-20 (NLT):

“Such stupidity and ignorance! Their eyes are closed, and they cannot see. Their minds are shut, and they cannot think. The person who made the idol never stops to reflect, “Why, it’s just a block of wood! I burned half of it for heat and used it to bake my bread and roast my meat. How can the rest of it be a god? Should I bow down to worship a piece of wood?” The poor, deluded fool feeds on ashes. He trusts something that can’t help him at all. Yet he cannot bring himself to ask, “Is this idol that I’m holding in my hand a lie?”

This is what happens with a ‘different Jesus’; it’s just a figment, nothing more. Yes it might ‘lead people astray’, but not for long.

This is because, despite all that detail and discussion and logic, it’s really quite simple. In terms of people being given the ‘wrong Jesus’ on any lasting basis, I don’t actually think that’s really possible. God is so much bigger and more powerful than the puny works of humans in their efforts to discredit Him, and despite the efforts of controlling leadership to monopolise Him and control access to Him. Jesus is above and beyond these people; this should really go without saying! Jesus speaks to people and makes Himself known to people, unhindered by the best efforts of Religious people to misrepresent Him.

Jesus still has good ‘cred’ – is in good standing, has good reputation, call it what you will – with ordinary people in general, at least in my country anyway. If that were not the case, then why would dodgy evangelists do the ‘bait and switch’ of luring people in, using Jesus as the bait and then giving them the Bible instead? If Jesus didn’t have an already-existing good reputation with people, then that bait wouldn’t work and they’d have to use different bait! It only works because Jesus is attractive to people.

For those who have their hearts even slightly turned towards Jesus, He has a way of bringing them to Himself that no fake Jesus can match. Bottom line is that this is a real Person we’re talking about here, not some man-made figment or concept. And, like I said earlier, He still has complete credibility.

I mean, look how those people are flocking to Annie’s Alpha Course. Those people have such a hunger for God that they have decided to overlook the ‘bad press’ that God gets so often, and to give Him a go all the same. And He loves that, and He honours it. And He guards it jealously.

None of us has a perfect picture of just Who and What Jesus is. He is perfectly capable of explaining Himself to His people[5]; to those who seek after Him, and also fully capable of making Himself known to His people in whatever measure they can cope with. This is part of growing into Christ; learning to recognise His voice and learning more about who He is, as well as becoming more like Him in whatever way we need to.

No matter what incorrect concepts those new believers might pick up (in any church setting, not specifically in Annie’s), He will sort things out once people are walking with Him. He did that for me, and He will do it for everyone who really wants to follow Him.

For those churches containing the hard-hearted Pharisee types, even there He can make Himself known. Closed and hardened hearts? He has a way of opening them and softening them. He did it for St. Paul, in that famous ‘Road to Damascus’ story in Acts 9:1-9. He did it for other Religious types too, for example the other Pharisees-turned-Christ-followers who were present at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:5), even though they had still not been weaned off legalism!

How about those Christian doctrines and practices that seem to specialise in putting people off Jesus? Again, especially those listed in my introductory paragraphs above?

This is a tricky one. Because Christianity has so many different denominations and with so many belief structures, doctrines and whatnot, there will always be some things – such as I have also listed in this series on The Problems of Evangelicalism! – that will put outsiders off[6]. And yet, even then, people are still hungry for God! People came to Annie’s Alpha course despite the well-publicised faults of organised Religion, and similar things happen elsewhere too.

And so, having been shown all this, I simply had to change my attitude. To change my mind; to ‘μετανοια’; to ‘metanoia’, a Greek word meaning, as I said, to ‘change the mind’, and usually translated as ‘repent’. You know what? I would not want my own hard-heartedness and blindness to cause me to miss anything that Jesus is doing in this day. That would be a tragedy! So I’m good with changing my mind!

As long as Christ is preached, that’s sufficient. Jesus is more than capable of leading all of His followers into all Truth. Despite many Christians’ insistence that the human heart cannot be trusted (based on just one famous and misused verse (Jeremiah 17:9)), Jesus said in John 16:3 that the Holy Spirit would lead believers into all Truth.

Quite how so many Christians cannot trust what Jesus says there is quite beyond me. God entrusts believers with listening to the Spirit for themselves, in their own hearts, minds and ears. He knows the ‘risks’, and indeed the consequences, should we mishear the Spirit, or ignore Her[7]. Maybe they’re listening to the Prophets (in this case, Jeremiah) when God said at the Transfiguration that the disciples should, instead of listening to Moses and the Prophets, listen to “…My Son, with Whom I am well pleased”. (Luke 9:35). And that would be Jesus. So, listen to Him!

So, to Annie, people who run Alpha Courses, and indeed any Christian who does it:

As long as Christ is being preached, then it’s all good.

Grace and Peace to you 😊

Footnotes

Footnotes
1 Simply because this doctrine, more than any other, besmirches the character of God and depicts Him as something He really isn’t.
2 It’s my gentle pastor’s heart that really feels for them.
3 And there’s no bait-and-switch, either, as far as I can see! (Bait = Jesus, Switch = Bible)
4 And I know for a fact that many Christians believe that my beliefs are a different gospel!
5 Despite the best efforts of Religious people who try to pretend a monopoly on Jesus and want to be His mouthpiece; to claim exclusive rights on supposedly speaking for Him!
6 One of the things that happened to me during my main ‘Dark Night of the Soul’ was that I got to see, in all its horrifying detail, just what Evangelicalism, at least, looks like from the outside. It wasn’t a pretty sight, and by and large it still isn’t!
7 The Hebrew word for Spirit, ‘Ruach’, is feminine.

I’ll Never Let Go of Your Hand

This entry is part 36 of 39 in the series The Problems of Evangelicalism

Let Don Francisco minister God’s Grace to you with this beautiful song

I’ve put this gorgeous song in this series on The Problems of Evangelicalism because I know how dark this series is, and I feel that my readership could do with something uplifting.

In this song, which I have seen ministered, and have also ministered myself, to the fruit of changed lives, the Spirit speaks powerful words of the affirmation of God’s love for a believer. There’s no conditions, no jumping through hoops, just purest Grace.

This version is from Don’s 1982 album, ‘The Live Concert’, and I have also included the encouraging words that he spoke before singing the song itself.

Let this song lift you up; let it affirm God’s endless love for you, no matter how many naysayers might try to steal your peace, kill your joy, and destroy your assurance.

This song speaks God’s promise to your heart through the matchless medium of music.

Listen, hear, and be blessed!

Here are the lyrics:

I know what you’ve been hearing
I’ve seen you hide your fear
Embarrassed by your weaknesses
Afraid to let Me near
I wish you knew how much I long for you to understand
No matter what may happen, child
I’ll never let go of your hand

I know you’ve been forsaken
By all you’ve known before
When you failed their expectations
They frowned and closed the door
But even if your heart itself should lose the will to stand
No matter what may happen, child
I’ll never let go of your hand

The life that I have given you
No one can take away
I’ve sealed it with my Spirit, Blood and Word
The everlasting Father has made His covenant with you
And He’s stronger than the world you’ve seen and heard

So don’t you fear to show them
All the love I have for you
I’ll be with you everywhere
In everything you do
And even if you do it wrong
And miss the joy I’ve planned
I’ll never, never, never let go of your hand

The life that I have given you
No one can take away
I’ve sealed it with my Spirit, Blood and Word
The everlasting Father has made His covenant with you
And He’s stronger than the world you’ve seen and heard

So don’t you fear to show them all
The love I have for you
I’ll be with you everywhere
In everything you do
And even if you do it wrong and miss the joy I’ve planned
I’ll never, never, never let go of your hand
I’ll never let go of your hand

– Don Francisco, used here with his kind permission

Much Better!

This entry is part 35 of 39 in the series The Problems of Evangelicalism

I really have to share a positive experience with a local church leader, who actually responded – positively! – with a decisive answer to my Litmus Test.

You will likely remember that the Litmus Test is where I ask church leadership how well people with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and other (LGBTQ+) sexualities are integrated into their church.

Generally, so far at any rate, church leaders have avoided (and in some cases completely ignored!) my question.

In this case, however, I was thrilled to not only get a straight answer, but also, as I said, the answer was overwhelmingly positive. In that church, LGBTQ+ people are fully integrated – and I also got the impression that someone’s sexuality is no-one else’s business. Which is as it should be.

How do you like that?!

The church is an Anglican congregation and, as far as I can tell, the ethos behind it is an Evangelical one. Sure, there was the invitation to go for a chat and coffee – which I actually did! – but the massive difference was that my question was answered straight up, before I went to meet up.

So I went along for a chat with the church leader, and learned a bit about their history and what the church does. I have to say I was very impressed, and would have no qualms whatsoever about attending services at that church.

That’s so huge for me.

Now, I did glean that there are certain doctrines that I don’t agree with – like Hell, for instance – that are likely a part of their belief structure. But it was also explained to me that people are entitled to form their own opinions from discussion, research and the Scriptures, which is a really healthy way to do things. And differing beliefs are ‘allowed’.

What?, you might say. How can others dictate what beliefs are allowed and are not? Who even gets a say in others’ belief structures? Well, when you consider my faith background in my nearly half-century of walking with Jesus, with the near-culty medium-control congregations I have been a part of, then it should come as no surprise that some people actually do expect that others dictate their beliefs, on pain of ostracism or at least disapproval if they do not conform. Also, there is an expectation that strangers can correct other strangers ‘all done in love, brother’, and that this is seen as normal.

So, then, to find an environment in which that is not the ‘norm’ is indeed refreshing, and especially in a congregation that is likely Evangelical at its root.

I’m impressed, I have to say.

And it was lovely to meet that leader and to get to know them a little.

So I just thought I’d share this little nugget of good news and brightness, in my generally dark series on the Problems of Evangelicalism. Throughout the series, I have taken care to maintain the assertion that a) good stuff does come out of Evangelicalism, and b) that not all Evangelical congregations are cast in the same culty mould as those others I have queried with my Litmus test. And this congregation is a great example of those kinds of good congregations. And it’s right on my doorstep; more or less, anyway.

And I find that really encouraging!

I’m Now Publishing on Substack too

Just to let my regular readers know that I am also now publishing my blog entries on the wider platform of Substack.

I’m in the gradual process of moving the articles at the rate of a few every day – it’s probably going to take a good while as I have made several hundred blog posts over the eleven years I have been writing it! While Substack does have a bulk import feature, it doesn’t work with my blog because of certain formatting issues, particularly with page layouts and the footnotes plugin I use.

Also, the RefTagger Bible references rollover feature doesn’t work on Substack either, which is a bit of a pain. If you roll over this Scripture reference John 3:16 with your mouse, or click on it as a link (if you’re using a mobile phone), it will take you to the Bible verse itself. This doesn’t work at all on Substack.

Also, the series system works very differently on Substack. On there, the series are not quite the same way of handling things; on there they are called ‘Sections’ and they always show with the newest at the top of the list. This is annoying as usually each of my series have an introduction page which it’s usually best to read first. But on Substack there’s no facility to arrange them like that. Meh.

But still, all my blog posts will still appear here on my usual WordPress blog, so don’t worry! I just wanted to get my stuff out to a wider audience, is all.

Here’s the link to my Substack homepage if you’d like to see how things look on there:

My Substack Homepage