Category Archives: Insights

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 38 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 38 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 38 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 38 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

And I’m Still a Stranger!

This entry is part 34 of 38 in the series The Problems of Evangelicalism
More attempts to get a straight answer out of Evangelical church leadership

A few months ago, I wrote an account of my attempts to get a straight answer out of the leadership of a local Evangelical church; an answer to my standard ‘Litmus Test’ which I use to determine how ‘safe’ a church is for people with ‘differences’.

I ask them how they go about integrating people of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and other sexualities (LGBTQ+) into their church. A simple question, you’d have thought. But it seems not. The story of that attempt was written as a real-time experiment, and it makes for intriguing reading – as well as being frustrating, surprising and indeed infuriating all at the same time! Here is the link in case you want to go and look at the story.

That church failed the test. Not only did the pastor not answer the question, but he didn’t even reply to me. And part of the testing I performed was to check that his email system was working, which it was – so he didn’t have that excuse.

In short, I was a stranger, and he did not welcome me! (Matthew 25:43)

My attempts to find a church that passed the Litmus Test continued after that experiment. And I am – ‘disappointed’ isn’t really strong enough – disgusted, perhaps? to report that I have contacted three other churches with the Litmus Test question, and in each case they have at least replied to me – which is good – but also in each case they have ‘invited’ me for a coffee and chat, and also in each case the terms were very firmly dictated to me with reference to it having to be in their town, face-to-face only, and that that was the only way they were going to discuss the matter. In other words, very hardline church leader stuff, and in fact in one case he never replied to anything else I sent him.

I don’t like to generalise, but it doesn’t look good that so far, four out of four local Evangelical church leaders have refused to answer the question. They are still hiding behind the sofa, hoping the problem will go away. In my case, it will indeed go away, because I will simply shake the dust (Mt 10:14) and move on; I want nothing further to do with these people.

But the problem itself will not go away. If these people really claim to represent Christ on the earth, and if they seriously want to, as they see it, ‘save people from Hell’ (and all good Evangelicals should indeed want just that!), then sooner or later they will need to address the question. The LGBTQ+ community, and other people with ‘differences’ from the white, cisgender heteronormative and neurotypical pattern so favoured by Evangelical churches, will simply stay away. Which, of course, may be the whole idea for those leaders anyway.

The thing is, though, that in the context of the Bible chapter where it is recorded that Jesus actually said ‘I was a stranger, and you did not welcome Me’ (Matthew 25:43), Jesus was having a proper rant about the attitudes of the Religious of His time; the attitudes of the Religious towards the very people towards whom, it seems, Evangelicalism holds the same attitudes. Those who are marginalised, downtrodden, less fortunate, poorer, or even just different, even.

And those Religious people are the people to whom Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do to one of the least of these, you did not do for Me” (Mt 25:45).

One of ‘the least of these’ was the ‘stranger’, of whom Jesus said the religious did not invite them, and thereby Him, in. And so they did not invite Him in, either.

It seems I am still a stranger, then!

A Dark Testimony IX – The Precipitating Event

This entry is part 33 of 38 in the series The Problems of Evangelicalism
Precipitating: To hasten the occurrence of; bring about prematurely, hastily, or suddenly. – Dictionary.com 

TRIGGER WARNING: As with most of the Dark Testimony pieces in this series on the Problems of Evangelicalism, be warned that this story contains accounts of spiritual abuse. However, it also contains great encouragement, so it’s probably worth it!


The Precipitating Event

The Dark Night of the Soul is, for many believers, something they have never heard of. For others, it is something that they have experienced – and may still be experiencing, that or something like it[1] – but haven’t got a name for. For yet others, it is an experience that they recognise, and take full advantage of. I have written on the subject of the Dark Night extensively, the main such piece being the sixth part part of the series ‘The Stages of Spiritual Growth‘, a piece entitled ‘The Wall’. If you’re not familiar with the concept of the Dark Night, may I gently suggest that you go and read that piece first; it will be well worth it!

For many people who enter the Dark Night, there appears to be a ‘precipitating event’ – the thing that begins the process, tips the person ‘over the edge’, or the ‘spark that starts the fire'[2]. This could be something like a life trauma – loss of a loved one; a scary medical diagnosis; loss of a job – or it could be church disillusionment, or indeed anything else including even good things. Maybe the birth of a child shakes up your foundations of faith; you realise how Father God feels about you because of the way you feel about your own child. I speak more on this subject in the article ‘Dark Night of the Soul – Revisited‘. For me – and it’s just come back to mind just now, which is why I’m writing about it! – I’m afraid it was yet another episode of spiritual abuse.

Here’s what happened.

For a year or so after the birth of my daughter in 1998, Fiona and I were involved in helping a local Anglican church to move into the realm of what you might call ‘modern’ songs. Essentially, we, along with a small team of musicians from that church, introduced modern songs (i.e. not your old bog-standard ‘hymns’) into their worship. We did this once per month, at the request of the Vicar in that church, and we did it on an entirely voluntary basis; we were unpaid. Which was fine.

In general, the congregation were behind it and liked the new music. We didn’t bring any ‘happy-clappy’ stuff; it was more of the quiet devotional kinds of worship songs that we did. I even performed a few solo Don Francisco songs on occasion. In general, it went very well, including two particularly memorable incidents: one where another worship leader from another church came and complimented me on my leading and said he recognised the anointing; and another time when an old lady went over ‘in the Spirit'[3] and they didn’t realise what had happened to her. No-one there had ever seen it before, you see, but I could tell that that was what had happened. And hey, if I’d been wrong, well, they had actually called an ambulance for her and the paramedics turned up and pronounced her completely fine and also very happy! So, all good.

There was also an elderly couple there that were really keen on the music. I assume they were like closet Evangelicals or something, because after every service where we contributed, they would come up and say how pleased they were that we were introducing the new songs. I don’t know what they were called, but as is always the case in meetings of any kind where people are up at the front leading, likely everyone in the 300+ congregants feels like they actually know you where in actual fact, of course, they really don’t. And, because of their evident enthusiasm, it was a great surprise to me that the abuse, when it came, was delivered by the wife in that couple. Underneath her sanctimonious exterior, it turned out that there was a bitter and judgmental old bag that felt entitled to judge me and then to rebuke me, a complete stranger.

The lady’s judgmental religious spirit may not have been strictly Evangelical, but her actions on that day, and the following days, illustrate perfectly the sorts of things that terminally Religious people can do, given sufficient self-righteous indignation for a perceived offence (like ‘Joanna’ in the story in this essay) and which seems to be overly prevalent in Evangelical congregations. Plus, like I said, the old biddy did seem like a closet Evangelical! And the effects on the victim are the same.

What happened was that on one of the occasions where I was leading, there was also a ‘baptism’ – actually, being Church of England, it was a ‘Christening’; infant baptism – and most of the congregation were at the back, clustered around the font, to watch. I was talking quietly with one of the music team; we were still out at the front of the church, and a fair way away from the font. He’d asked me something about – of all things – throwing objects; you know, like a cricket ball. Or a hand grenade. Or whatever. And I was demonstrating the actions as we discussed things. All very quiet, everyone looking away from us and concentrating on the main event: the baptism. I thought nothing of it at the time; the baptism completed, the congregation took their seats again and we carried on with the next song.

But then, after the service, that old bag came up to me and started laying in to me about that she wanted to know what I was playing at waving my arms around like that during such a solemn event as a baptism. Genuinely perplexed, I politely asked her what she was referring to. I didn’t have a clue; it was only later when my friend mentioned about the ‘throwing’ action I’d been demonstrating that I realised[4]. At the time, I flippantly suggested that maybe I was ‘praising the Lord’ or something. You know, by raising my hands? “No you weren’t!” she snarled, really nastily and viciously. “You were trying to disrupt the baptism!” I managed to keep myself in check and just quietly said that “I don’t know what the hell I’m doing in this church”. All this while my daughter was in her pushchair, watching this strange interaction between her dad and this random old bag. But of course the hag didn’t care; these kinds of people never do. She didn’t care about the damage she was doing; not at all. Eventually I just walked out, carrying my keyboard bag in one hand and pushing the buggy with the other, pursued by the strains of this ranting old biddy.

It might look like a standard sort of complaint – albeit badly delivered – by someone who was offended by something that a fellow congregant did. But the reasons I refer to it as abuse are many-fold, not least of which are a) there was no relationship between us, within which she could have any right to deliver such a rebuke; b) she did it publicly, ignoring (as, most of the time, these people tend to do) her own Rulebook where Jesus said to confront people privately; c) she really didn’t need to be so nasty about it; d) I was a volunteer, for crying out loud; giving my services and my time for free! That’s no way to treat someone who is giving freely!; e) because of what happened afterwards.

What happened afterwards? Well, she only went and told others in the church that I had actually told her to ‘go to Hell’, didn’t she. This lie, of course, took hold like wildfire, and the poor Vicar had to come round to see me and apologise gently for his congregation’s behaviour, and to (again gently) discuss our future plans with regard to our leading the ‘new worship’. In the end, we decided to discontinue it because my ‘reputation’ with them had been befouled by that evil old hag and her lies. I have to say that, since this happened nearly thirty years ago, the old bag is thankfully now long dead and gone. Sorry-not-sorry, but that’s the gritty reality of my feelings. That’s one less judgmental old hag blighting the church, and the world is a better place for that[5].

But the thing is that, even before the Vicar had come round to see me, I had decided that enough was enough and I never wanted to set foot in a church again. A place where a complete stranger can come up and abuse a person as if they have some sort of right to do that – probably, in her view, a divine right because, almost universally, religious people seem to delude themselves into thinking they have that right. I’d just had enough.

And so, that was my Precipitating Event. The thing that pushed me out of church life for fifteen years; fifteen gloriously free years of still walking with Jesus and yet free of all of the restrictions and hassle of church life. As I described in my essay ‘Still your Soul in Silence‘, the Lord had warned me about the upcoming upheaval, and I have to say that from this side of the Night, I can see all that He did before, during and afterwards as part of His plan. Some people don’t believe in God’s plans; I can understand that, especially as how the concept is so abused by Evangelical pastors (especially youth pastors), but the reality of it is that God does work with and in humans to bring about His purposes. I am convinced of this; I have been walking with Jesus for 46 years now and, despite being a cynical (retired) scientist, and someone who’s well aware of the existence of confirmation bias, I still see His plan. I have learned to do so through all the trials that life has thrown my way and let me say that God’s plans, and His wisdom and genius in carrying out those plans, run far deeper than any youth pastor, indeed any human, can fathom. These are the things that St. Paul talks about in Romans 11:33 where he says, “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!”.

It’s also the sort of thing that you learn by being close to Him and following Him. Psalm 63:8 says, “I cling to You; Your right hand upholds me”, or, better, the KJV version, “My soul followeth hard after Thee” (Ps 63:8 (KJV)). And “The secret of the Lord is with those who fear Him; He shall make them know His covenants” (Ps 25:14 (KJV))

No matter what part of your faith walk you are presently ‘at’, you will doubtless know of things in your own life where you can see places where God has done things; said things;  worked things out. All of these things build up over the course of your life in order to build trust more and more in Him and in His unshakable faithfulness.

And remember that His faithfulness is independent of yours. He is the One Who will continue His work in your life, through thick and thin, to make you into the person you want to be. None of it is dependent on you because not only is He the One Who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious Presence faultless and with great joy (Jude 24), but also He is the One Who will do it. He is the One Who will carry on the work until it is completed (Phil 1:6). He will do it. Not you; in fact, it has nothing at all to do with your actions or anything. Grace is a gift from start to finish; Grace is not in any way dependent on behaviour. Remember that for me, God was transforming me, teaching me, pruning me from all the religious rubbish, and doing so many other things, and all while I was deliberately and purposefully staying away from churches because, well, that’s what the Dark Night does. Nothing ‘sinful’ about it; not that I’d have cared even if someone thought it was. It was just the place where I was ‘at’ in that time of my life; guided by His Hand and safe in His everlasting arms (Dt 33:27).

And it was a healthy and productive time of growth, no matter what other believers thought about me at the time. Part of me being in that Dark Night was that I was learning to disregard the opinions of others regarding my spiritual walk, because it’s entirely between me and God.

Because  – He is faithful. Yes, He is Faithful.

And so, I’m afraid I almost have to thank the old bag. Because she was instrumental in pushing me over the edge and into the Dark Night proper.

Over the course of my faith life before my Dark Night, I would often feel, in faith terms, as if I was driving a fast car down the centre of a road. And every so often I would burn out or become disillusioned, or something similar. And so at those times it was as if the car was swerving left and right across the road; wheels on the edge of the road at one point, wheels almost in the ditch at another. I often wondered if the car would ever come off the road entirely[6]. Well, it did, thanks to the actions of that stranger who believed she had the right to speak into my life. I crashed out completely, and it was the best thing that ever happened to me. That’s not to say that I believe that God foreordains evil things; that’s going into the realms of Calvinism, which toxic doctrines I steer clear of. But it does show that God can use even church abuse in order to bring about His purposes.

And I find that quite encouraging!

 

 

Footnotes

Footnotes
1 It’s always a highly individual experience, and it’s never the same for any two people.
2 Hence the flint spark in the header picture!
3 Being ‘overcome by the Spirit’ is when the power of the Holy Spirit is so strong on a person that there are physical ‘manifestations’; sometimes the person will shake/tremble, sometimes they will just be almost unconscious of what is going on around them, so overcome are they with the power and presence of God, and sometimes – most people will have seen videos of this sort of thing – they just fall over as if poleaxed. Hopefully someone will catch them on their way to the floor. I was once ‘ministering’ to a young man on the floor who suddenly opened his eyes and rolled away, because he had become aware that his mother – who was ‘quite a big lady’ was also about to fall over and land on him 🤣 Someone would have caught her, all right, but that someone would have been her son. Sort of. 😂
4 I mean, why wasn’t she watching the baptism like most of the rest of the congregation; what was she doing peering at me??
5 Plus, she’ll be in Heaven, so it’s better for her too! 🤣
6 I described this swinging phenomenon in the first paragraph of this article, where I wrote, “…on each occasion that I burned out, I came closer and closer to never going back into leading – or even into Church; each time, that Dark Night beckoned. Eventually, it turned out to be exactly what I needed…”

Crapology

This entry is part 32 of 38 in the series The Problems of Evangelicalism
When Theology Contradicts Jesus

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

 

Here is a magnificent piece which I just had to share. In this excellent essay, my friend Glenn Regular explains clearly and simply how following Jesus looks completely different from following Religion. I can put it no better than he does!


Crapology: When Theology Contradicts Jesus

A theology that believes that it is ok to marginalize, oppress, disrespect, segregate, and shun people, reject the teachings of Jesus, and even portray God in ways contrary to His revealed character, yet still claim to be follow Christ’s teachings high treason. A fitting theological term for such a theology I would frame as “Crapology”…a doctrine that bears the name of Christ while denying Him in practice[1]).

Jesus never taught His followers to measure righteousness by doctrinal correctness while neglecting love. Rather, He declared, “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). Love was not an optional virtue in the kingdom of God; it was the defining evidence of authentic discipleship. A theology that produces contempt for others may preserve religious systems, but it does not preserve the spirit of Christ.

John rebutted such theology. “He who does not love does not know God, for God is love” (1 John 4:8). Notice that John does not say such a person merely has imperfect theology. He says they do not know God. One may be able to quote Scripture, defend doctrines, and argue theology, but if love is absent, the knowledge claimed is revealed to be hollow.

Jesus consistently stood with those whom religion pushed aside. He touched lepers, welcomed sinners, defended adulterers from condemnation, and ate with those considered unclean. The religious establishment objected because His mercy disrupted their theological categories. Yet Christ revealed that the heart of God is not exclusion but reconciliation. “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).

Paul also warned that even the greatest religious accomplishments amount to nothing without love. “Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:2). Not just mistaken. Not just incomplete. Nothing. Love is not the ornament of truth; it is the very atmosphere in which truth lives.

One of the greatest forms of Crapology is the demonization of God Himself. Many have portrayed the Father as a hell sender, less merciful than Christ, and more eager to condemn than to restore. Yet Jesus declared, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). If Jesus forgave His enemies, God forgives His enemies. If Jesus loved sinners, God loves sinners. If Jesus sought the lost, God seeks the lost. Any doctrine that paints God darker than Jesus is a doctrine that has lost sight of its own foundation.

The religious leaders of Jesus’ day possessed impeccable theology by their own standards, yet Christ rebuked them because their doctrines had eclipsed the weightier matters of the law: “justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23). They searched the Scriptures diligently, but failed to recognize the One to whom the Scriptures pointed (John 5:39-40). Their theology became a substitute for God rather than a pathway to Him.

The tragedy of Crapology is that it often speaks the language of faith while producing the fruit of fear, judgment, division, and exclusion. But Jesus taught that a tree is known by its fruit (Matthew 7:16-20). If a doctrine consistently produces arrogance instead of humility, condemnation instead of mercy, hatred instead of love, and separation instead of reconciliation, then the fruit testifies against the root.

The gospel revealed in Christ is not the triumph of religion over people. It is the triumph of divine love over everything that separates people from God and from one another. “For God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them” (2 Corinthians 5:19). The closer one comes to Jesus, the more one learns to love. The further a doctrine leads from love, the further it leads from Christ.

A theology that rejects the character of Jesus while claiming His name deserves to be questioned. A theology that produces contempt while preaching Christ deserves to be challenged. And a theology that makes God look less loving than Jesus deserves a more honest title than Christian theology.

Perhaps “Crapology” will do.

Footnotes

Footnotes
1 If the word ‘Crapology’ offends you, then I’d say you need to stop looking for gnats and be careful you don’t swallow any camels (Mt 23:24

A Dark Testimony VIII – Church Recovery Day (Reblog)

This entry is part 31 of 38 in the series The Problems of Evangelicalism

Here is an essay from some years ago, where I presented a small glimpse into the good and the bad in Evangelical Christianity.

I feel it’s important to re-blog this one at the moment,

because this present series on ‘The Problems of Evangelicalism’ can be read as being pretty negative with regards to the actual people within Evangelicalism. However, right from the start, I have said in many of the essays in this series that this is not my intention; I do not think of the people as being in any way ‘bad’; these are all my brothers and sisters in Christ and He loves them, He died for them, and He too still attends their meetings 😀

In this essay, then, you will read some of the warm affection I have for my former congregation in Leeds. And, on the other hand, there is also some really good stuff from the legendary Don Francisco, where he explains why people would still go to churches where they are abused – something which always puzzled me.

And something which still puzzles me is how Christians of any kind can think of themselves as ‘keeping the Sabbath holy’ while at the same time working like beavers for the entire day on a Sunday. At least, those involved in Sunday ministry of any kind obviously can’t help but for this to be the case. Clearly, this is a case where there needs to be flexibility in the attitudes of Christians, and some leeway given – especially when considering that Jesus Himself said that the Sabbath was made for man, and not the other way round (Mk 2:27). That said, this leeway also opens up gentle Christians to abuse by pushy leadership, as I also explain in this essay with regard to my own personal Sabbath, which at the time had to be a Saturday. I do think that, in the end, decisions like honouring the Sabbath need to be a personal matter for each individual, and no-one else has any place in judging someone else for their adherence to someone else’s ruleset. This is what freedom in Christ actually looks like[1]. One other thing: it’s especially despicable when pushy leadership tell you that doing work on a Sunday should be a joy because you are serving the Lord, and therefore it doesn’t count as work. That’s manipulation of the most disgusting order, and yes I am sorry to say that there are manipulative people like that in the church, in all denominations! I suppose it takes all sorts….

Anyway, enough of my blather 🤣 Here instead is some other blather from several years ago!:


It’s funny, but as an Evangelical, Charismatic, Fundamentalist Christian, I believed that the Sabbath (in my ‘denomination’, that was a Sunday) was supposed to be ‘kept holy’  – whatever that’s supposed to mean (nobody ever really explored the concept, after all!) – but at the very least it should be a day of rest, because that’s what God did on the Sabbath day. Whether it was a Friday, Saturday or Sunday didn’t matter, as long as we had one day a week where we rested.

For me, my Sabbath had to be Saturday, because in addition to working a full-time job during the week, I was working at Church things virtually all day Sunday, what with being a Church musician, worship leader and all. And my leadership didn’t like me having that Saturday day of rest; I kept my Saturdays clear rigorously, and of course if that clashed with their timetable (if they  wanted something done on a Saturday) they weren’t keen. But I held fast to my principle; after all, as a lead musician, and bloody good at what I did at the keyboard, there was no way they were going to ‘fire’ me (unless I dropped some doctrinal clanger, of course, which I never did).

But I have to be fair to them. My Church’s meetings were usually filled with the Presence of God, and I have seen people break down in tears just by the sheer sense of that Presence. The people were friendly and helpful, and genuinely cared and ministered to each other and to those outside the Church too. Underneath that surface, yes, there were all the harsh doctrines like hell and judgement, and most of the people there felt entitled to challenge complete strangers if they said something out of line[2]. And remember that just because God graces a church with His Presence, does not mean that He is affirming all their beliefs. Far from it; usually, He actually turns up despite our beliefs. But for the most part (and probably because I kept to all the doctrinal tenets), the church was a pretty safe place for me and my family.

This isn’t always the case, sadly. Some churches can be traumatic places to be, and to be honest I never understood why people carried on going to them[3]. Until I read this piece by legendary Christian musician Don Francisco, in which he describes very clearly why he felt he had to be there every week, and to keep going back to the trauma factory. Over to Don:


“Monday… church recovery day. That’s how it used to be for me, except sometimes it was worse: It could take most of the week for me to heal after hearing what was taught in song and sermon on Sunday.

“Why would I keep going back? Because I’d been taught that going to church was necessary to please God; I’d attended since I was born. The Bible commanded it: “Do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together…”

“So, what exactly did I need to heal from? Fear, guilt, and self-hate… just to name the Big Three. Fear of a god who punished in ways that would appall a sociopath; guilt from every real and imagined sin in recent memory; and knowing that my heart was untrustworthy and “desperately wicked”…

“It didn’t really matter what denomination the church was, or if the preacher was a kind person or not; the bottom line was still this: God was angry at sin, and my only hope was to hide my sinful self behind Jesus.

“For those in varying degrees of recovery today, I have some advice for you: Like Paul the apostle did, consider all that religious stuff dung. Yep, that’s right: Bullshit.

“God is not angry with you; He is love. He became a human to prove it, calling us brothers and friends, forgiving us at our worst when we murdered Him. Today, we can each hear the Spirit speak words of love and support if we’ll listen.

” ‘Come to me, all of you who struggle beneath religion’s heavy load, and I will give you rest. Walk with me and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you shall find rest for your souls.’ And freedom from fear, guilt, and self-hate…”

– Don Francisco


Here’s the link to the original post on Don’s Facebook page

Need I add more? If you’re at a church like that, well, my first action would be to get out of there, but that depends on what Father is calling you to do. The loving Heavenly Father, of course, not the nasty, radgy god that your church may be preaching. But the main thing is to seek Jesus, in whatever way works for you, and find your comfort and acceptance there.

Don’t get me wrong: not all churches are ‘trauma factories’. Far from it. Most of them are places of healing, friendship and, above all, the Presence of God. But the purpose of this blog post is to highlight, for people in such a harmful church, that there are churches out there where good is done, rather than horror. Churches where Jesus is preached, rather than conformity to the leadership’s whims.

Concerning matters of faith, I used to say ‘one size doesn’t fit all’. But in the case of Jesus, it actually does. Jesus does indeed fit all, even if His Church doesn’t. He loves who you are, He loves you right where you are, right as you are, and does not ask you to change except where you want to change.

I think that’s marvellous, don’t you? Now that’s a God I can love!

 

Footnotes

Footnotes
1 Nowadays, I still have to enforce in myself a ‘day of rest’ because I am a full-time carer for an ill relative. This means that, essentially, I just never stop. And so I have to make myself stop; I make myself do no work at all on a Sunday – Sunday being the best day for me, not for any religiously-significant reason, but simply because the shops and other businesses like phone lines and things are closed on a Sunday. It means I am more likely to get things done on other days in the week when there will be people to talk to on the phone, emails will be replied to, and so on.
2 For me, many of the people were complete strangers, except for my group of closer friends. This is the way friendship groups work, of course. But the thing with being at the front is that everyone feels they already actually do ‘know’ you, even if they don’t. And in a church of 300 people, most people fall into that latter category 😉
3 For a good example of a church I would never want to be in, go to YouTube and search for ‘Mark Driscoll God Hates You’. I will not befoul my blog with a link to that deadly rubbish
(deadly in that it brings death of the spirit within; it’s spiritual abuse). Even thinking about that makes my blood boil, and injures my gentle pastor’s heart.