Category Archives: Others’ stuff

The Real Testimony

A short thought inspired by my friend Darren…

The other day, my friend Darren posted this on Facebook:

”If you ever feel the need to exaggerate your testimony, or exaggerate what God has done for you in order to bring Him glory, you need to question whether it was Him or you in the first place! Do you really want the reality of God or are you happy to continue exaggerating? Jer 29:13…

My reply was this:

Agreed. I also recall the painful times in our old Youth Group back in the early 80’s, when they went round the circle asking each person for a testimony. I never thought that was right because that pressured people into making things up. Most of the time, my testimony would have been something like, ‘God’s doing a deep work in me but I can’t describe it’, which wouldn’t have gone down too well! And sometimes, just the miraculous Presence of God in my life all the time was a constant and so I didn’t really see anything particularly noteworthy of testimony because for me that was the norm. Nowadays, of course, I would not testify publicly – well, except in my blog – because nowadays the reception has shifted to the sad reality that most Evangelical Christians feel the need to challenge everything and try to prove it’s not of God or something. Judging when a testimony would only be ‘pearls before swine’ is an acquired skill! 😁

Beyond the Litmus Test

This entry is part 40 of 41 in the series The Problems of Evangelicalism
Puissant, male-dominated Evangelicalism, and reasons why it’s like that!

I’ve written before about how one of this things I’d love to see disappear from the Church is the prevalence of puissant (pushy) male-dominated leadership and all its consequent abuses.

That deeply-embedded, yes, sickness, is one of the main reasons why I use my Litmus Test, in order to ascertain how ‘safe’ a church is before I will consider attending services there.

And, like me in that post referenced above, the brilliant Chris Kratzer has also articulated that point, along with some other points of nastiness that modern-day Evangelicalism displays. And so I wanted to share what he wrote, because he really does have a way with words:


Most Christians never grow beyond their usefulness to religious, powerful men.
In fact, Christianity became Christianity because of its usefulness to the Empire. Spiritualizing male-driven power has and will always be big business.

In Christianity, and even in many progressive versions today, every decision, design, interpretation, and implementation is evaluated ultimately by its usefulness, support, and preservation of male-driven power.

That’s why, in truth, the Christian discrimination against women isn’t about honoring some definitive gender design by God, but rather about protecting absolute male-driven power.
In the same way, the Christian condemnation of queer people isn’t about calling “sinners” to repentance or God’s “design” for sexuality, it’s about protecting male-driven power. There are faithful, biblical, Jesus-honoring ways to affirm queer people. Condemning them is by choice, not by necessity.

The Christian racism against black and brown people isn’t about racial purity, economic vitality, or God creating whites superior, it’s about protecting male-driven white power.

The Christian assault and discrimination against non-Christians isn’t a quest for theological truth or religious authenticity, it’s about protecting male-driven Christian power.

Women, queer people, minorities, and non-Christians are a deep threat to male-driven power because each of them rightly seek the recognition and treatment of their God-given equal worth, value, dignity, and standing with white, heterosexual, Christian males.

See, Christianity has never truly been about repentance, moral integrity, truth, servanthood, or even Jesus. If it were, Christians would have very little time (if any at all) judging the world, forcing their faith, demanding privilege, and chasing after all the seats of power.

Instead, they would be totally consumed with repenting of their own sin, living in moral integrity, humbly seeking spiritual truth, serving humanity, loving their neighbors and enemies, putting the needs of others above themselves, and proclaiming the equal dignity, worth, and value of all people.

Sadly, for so many Christians, that is not their way, that is not their truth, and that is not their life.
Christianity became Christianity not for the cause of Christ, but for the cause of global spiritualized male-driven power.

That’s why, the moment a Christian grows beyond their usefulness to religious, powerful men they are called “woke,” backslidden, a “libtard” a “socialist” or “soft.”

The moment a Christian is also queer, they are demonized as a disgusting “sinner” in need of repentance and conversion therapy. Or at the very least, they are prevented from true service, leadership, influence, or real equality within their religious community.

The moment a Christian is also a woman, they are stripped of their true dignity, freedom, rights, power, and voice, and those that refuse to submit are belittled as “feminists, “bitches,” “emotional,” “ungodly” “helpmates” “lesser,” and “sluts.”

The moment a Christian is no longer a certain type of Christian or a Christian at all, they are quickly abandoned as “backslidden,” “rebels,” “reprobates,” “demon possessed,” “heretics,” or “lost.”

When you see the enemies, interpretations, systems, and politics Christianity chooses…

When you see what is deemed “infallible” versus what is deemed “symbolic” or “contextual”…

When homosexuality is labeled as a definitive non-negotiable, biblical “sin,” but Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is framed as “woke,” “metaphor,” and open for debate, interpretation, and even dismissal…

When “love you neighbor” is turned into a guest list that includes only those who look, act, believe, and live as you do…

… it becomes all too clear, the end game of so much of Christianity is men being able to say what they want, do what they want, get what they want, control what they want, screw who they want, kill who they want, exploit who they want, and abuse who they want, all without consequence or condemnation, because God “told them so.”

Class dismissed.

– Chris Kratzer, shared with his kind permission

Wisdom Fragments

Well ok, I admit that I’m really scrabbling to find new names for these ‘short bites’ collections, which, with this piece, are now thirty-nine in number! But fragments (of anything!) come in various sizes, as do these short paragraphs, so I thought I’d use that word as it captures that variety nicely.

Here we go:


We are all the authorities over our own humanity.
– John Pavlovitz

The church spent centuries arguing about who’s in and who’s out while Jesus kept eating dinner with whoever showed up.
– Beau Stringer

The …wounds that had nearly killed him were  gradually becoming a part of his history, not a limitation on his future.
– J. C. Jarvis, Nordland

The awakening needed cannot break through to their religious crusted mind
– Glenn Regular

The fact that you learned from your mistakes and deconstructed from man-made culty religion is awesome … and puts you leagues above the ones who haven’t. Welcome to the progressive subset of Christianity! We may be smaller but we value the message of Jesus and His examples over the Pharisaical religion and even the cult most churches have become.
– Carla

Dear Christians, Jesus didn’t ask for proof of work before multiplying loaves. He fed the hungry because hunger itself was proof enough.
– Ortinel

There’s a Religion-free Jesus that belongs to all of us
– Rob Cottrell

The Spirit does not make Scripture less authoritative. The Spirit rescues Scripture from becoming an idol in the hands of Religion. The Bible becomes a witness rather than a weapon, a window rather than a club, a testimony pointing beyond itself toward the living Christ. That is what Paul meant when he said that “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”
– Glenn Regular

The negative comments [to someone’s joy-filled Facebook post] are typical of Puritanism. If you’re having fun; if you are happy, then somewhere along the line you must be sinning. And it’s their job to tell you that.
– Me

…a critical part – an important part – of deconstructing faith, is separating Jesus from Christianity[1]
– Rob Cottrell

It’s like how the phrase ‘the whole counsel of Scripture’ simply means that they ignore different Scripture passages from the ones you do… 😉
– Me

“The most offensive thing about the Father of Jesus has always been who he accepts, not who he rejects; who he includes, not who he excludes. Religion has always gotten this precisely backwards, and this is why the way of Jesus is a narrow way. Not narrow in the sense that it is accessible only to an elite few, but in that those who think themselves elite reject it by default.”
– Jeff Turner

Now, if you want to make a populace that is dependent on its leaders, that will do whatever its leaders tell it to do, what better way than to tell them they can’t trust themselves?
– Susan Cottrell

Something that inerrantists invariably fail to notice is that when they use their Scripture verses to battle your Scripture verses, all they are doing is to demonstrate that the Bible does in fact contradict itself, and therefore it cannot in fact be inerrant.
– Me

As per usual, I liked to see the good side of everyone, which often left me feeling somewhat let down…
– Adrian Cousins, Death Becomes Them, Kindle Edition, location 1898

“Through those pages [of aviation magazines – Ed], as I grew up, I began to absorb all the good things that aviation gives you – a sense of captaincy, a passion for science, and the importance of discipline, to name a few. And I became increasingly aware of an apparent paradox of aviation, one that becomes increasingly familiar to those few ‘artsy’ pilots who venture into aviation journalism. Flying is primarily about emotions, it’s driven by the sense of freedom, the beauty and majesty of endless landscapes, and things like watching the sunset at the end of a flying day. But you can’t just abandon yourself to emotion and forget about the practicalities (“Carb heat on!”)[2]. It’s a fine line to walk for me, my ideal pilot being part robot and part poet.”
– Eugenio Facci, Editorial, Pilot Magazine, May 2025

One day I was deep in prayer it was shortly after I lost my Sweet young baby Bluregard [a pet rat – Ed]. I was praying that God would let me see Blue again later, and he said “What kind of a father would I be if I didn’t allow that…”
– Jaime

“Pastor, can you please tell me why you neglected to inform me that tithing was required for my salvation the first time I walked into your church? I could have died and gone to hell because I wasn’t tithing!”
– Ross Canning

Time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted
– Field Marshal Sir Arthur Wellesley, First Duke of Wellington

You are under no obligation to explain yourself, justify your calling, or submit to the interrogation of a broken, bad-faith system.
When people or structures approach you with “gotcha” questions—not out of a genuine desire to seek truth, but to control, judge, or categorize you—the most centered, powerful thing you can do is refuse to play their game.
You owe no data to a system that only wants to use it against you.
– Bob Young

[The] problem with ‘repentance’, as my old congregation’s leaders used to describe it, is that it denotes a ‘turning around’; a 180-degree turn. Therefore if you repent twice in a row, then you’re going the same direction as you were in the first place. And so on for each successive repentance. Which is probably why many Christians end up covering the same ground over and over again without actually getting anywhere; without moving forwards at all…
– Me

I know what it’s like to be trapped in religious legalism, and I know what it’s like to be free. I know what it is like to be overwhelmed with lies you think are true, and I know what it’s like to discover actual truth. This is why I am so passionate about pushing back on the new wave of conservative extremism. I’ve already been there and done that, and I know that none of it actually works. The formulas and promises are attractive. They seem safe and secure to fearful people looking for control. But they don’t deliver goodness. The true fruit of legalism and behavior-driven religion is emptiness, pain, confusion, and death. They pretend to be salvation, but they deliver destruction.
– Christy Lynne Wood

No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique.
– Sun Tzu, The Art of War XII, 18

During an early morning walk I was amazed to see an elderly gentleman collecting his dog’s excrement and taking it home with him. Holy crap, I shudder to think what his other hobbies are!
– Alan Thackray, Viz Letterbocks

Footnotes

Footnotes
⇧1 Meaning the distortions that Religion has placed on His character
⇧2 An essential action which is part of routine en-route checks and also in preparation for landing

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

Hell? No!

This entry is part 38 of 41 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

Crapology

This entry is part 32 of 41 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 41 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.

Dear White Evangelical Church: This is Why You’re Dying

This entry is part 29 of 41 in the series The Problems of Evangelicalism

Here is a profound essay by the brilliant John Pavlovitz, which mirrors closely what I have been saying recently in my work over the last year or so. It especially reflects some of the thinking and the points I made in my recent piece, ‘I Was a Stranger‘.

While some of John’s points are more related to the Evangelical church in the USA – for example, he mentions a President, and we don’t have any of those over on this side of the pond! – still it is worth sharing in its entirety because a) people all over the world will read this, and b) the UK Evangelical church has always had political intentions[1] and I can easily predict that UK Evangelicalism will copy its USA relatives – they always copy others – and I can already see signs of this happening.

I have not shared this with the intention of it being a political piece, except in that it indirectly highlights[2] my assertion that the Kingdom of God is not of this world and that Christians can live above and beyond the considerations of mere worldly power. I wrote about that point of view in the essay linked to here. As I have said in previous essays, I do not discuss politics on this blog. At the same time, however, I did not want to detract from the power of John’s words by breaking his flow or his logic processes. He’s a passionate man with a passionate message, and he deserves to have it published unabridged. Some of what John writes about is indeed leaking over into politics, and that’s unsurprising because the thinking of a righteous person who has the mind of Christ (1Cor2:16) will naturally rail against the systems of the world that lack righteousness[3].

Over to John:



Dear
Whi
te Evangelical Church,
I have some good news and some bad news.
The bad news is you’re dying.

If you’re paying attention, you’ve probably noticed the symptoms.

Your buildings are slowly clearing, your pews gradually emptying, your congregations visibly aging away, your voice carrying less resonance than it used to.

The reasons for this are complicated and interconnected, but here are a few broad strokes:

You’re dying because of your hypocrisy.

People see the ever-widening chasm between who you say you are and what they regularly experience in your presence.
They see the great disparity between the expansive hospitality of Jesus and the narrow prejudice you are so often marked by.
They see Christ’s deep affection for the poor, hurting, and marginalized, and either your quiet indifference or your open hostility toward them.
They’ve listened to you preach incessantly about the immorality of the world, the dangers of greed, the corrupt nature of power, the poison of untruth, the evils of sexual perversion—and watched you willingly align with politicians embodying all of these.
They see that you are so often the very kind of malevolent ugliness that you forever warned was coming to assail the world.

You’re dying because of your wilful ignorance.

People are tired of your war on Science.
They are sick of your arguing with Biology.
They are exhausted by your attacks on women.
They are disgusted by your justifications of racism.
They despise your narcissistic nationalism.
They know the Earth is round.
They know it is billions, not thousands of years old.
They know dinosaurs walked it.
They know that it is warming rapidly.
They know people here don’t choose their sexuality or deserve their poverty.
They know whoever and whatever God doesn’t appoint Presidents or hand out weapons or attack people with tornadoes.

You’re dying because of your devotion to cruelty.

People watch you dig in your heels against others because of their gender identity and their sexual orientation; the way you continually exact violence upon them, the way you try to blame God and the Bible for your mindless bigotry.
They’ve seen your intolerance to other religious traditions: how you vilify anyone who finds spirituality and meaning outside of your precise expression of Christianity, how you so easily disregard the faith stories of those who don’t mirror your own.
They’ve watched you so revel in being the bully to those you were originally called to protect.

You’re dying because of your complicity in violence.

Good people have seen you so often be a haven for misogynists, domestic abusers, sexual predators, and white supremacists, who more often receive protection rather than condemnation.
They’ve heard your explicit silence in the face of a brutal and rising flood of open racism, of hostility toward immigrants, of anti-Semitism, of attacks on Asian people and Muslims.
They see your pastors and leaders misuse their positions and leverage their influence to victimize the most vulnerable and make them scapegoats for discrimination.
They’ve watched you be the last, hateful holdout in matters of gender equality, racial diversity, sexuality, and theological difference; lagging behind almost everyone in the world in the kind of goodness you say you aspire to.

It’s easy to be fooled into believing you’re well because you have the political power of a presidency behind you, because you can temporarily impose your will on this nation. But this frantic flurry of cruelty is actually the death rattle of a doomed and dying thing. The empty bombast and blinding lights of your megachurches are a hollow rally that may momentarily anesthetize you, but they cannot stave off what is coming.

Yes, Evangelical Church, the bad news is that you’re slowly but surely expiring as you are now.

The good news is that in your passing, something else is being born.

Rising in these days is a sprawling movement of disparate people, not bound by denomination or tradition or nation, who want to create something redemptive and life-giving here, who don’t care what it’s called, who gets the credit, or what building it happens in.

Its makers are conscientious objectors in your unending holy wars, choosing to step away from you in order to create loving spiritual communities, grow deeper in personal faith, escape tribal partisan politics, craft a healthier planet, reflect the character of Jesus, and hold onto their souls.

These newly emancipated sojourners are creating something of compassion and generosity and hospitality; a radically inclusive faith that opens the table, a spirituality that welcomes the world, a religion that does no harm: a working theology of love. These open-hearted human beings are unearthing the beauty buried beneath heavy layers of rigid dogma, ornamental religion, and institutionalized discrimination.

The soul is leaving a body that no longer serves it, and you are that body.

The bad news for you, White Evangelical Church, is that you are certainly dying.

And it’s very good news for the rest of us and for a Jesus you have long ago murdered in your midst.


Here’s the link to the original piece.

Footnotes

Footnotes
⇧1 They want to influence society
⇧2 For those who have the eyes to see it, and the ears to hear it, anyway!
⇧3 This is very different from how Evangelicalism want to influence society; their ultimate political aim (although some of them won’t realise this) is at its end a society which is a theocracy; a society run by nutcase Evangelical leaders who believe they’re doing god’s will (and ruling on his behalf!) by imposing their version of ‘god’s’ rules and laws onto its citizens. This would be a completely evil outcome.

A Dark Testimony VII – The ‘Bad Apple’ Vicars

This entry is part 28 of 41 in the series The Problems of Evangelicalism
A story of deliberately dishonest leadership in the Church of England

My last church was a Church of England (CofE) church, and I never had any major problems there.

However, my friend’s experience in ‘their’ CofE church was very different. They have written up their story for inclusion in my blog as a ‘guest post’, and I thank them for both their efforts and their courage in doing so. And they want to remain anonymous – fine by me! – and I am honoured to present my friend’s story below.

I’m not going to comment on the story[1].  I don’t think I’ll need to.

Right, that’s all from me; over to my friend:


My experience at the hands of a charismatic evangelical Anglican church, and its leadership.

I should preface this by saying that I am autistic – and although I have only known this for a couple of years, that isn’t to say that I have only been autistic for a couple of years; autism is a life-long condition. In common with many (or probably most) autistics, I was horribly bullied at school – simply because I was ‘different’ (in ways I shan’t waste time explaining here and now – the differences are, at most, only peripherally relevant to this tale). Those who were, in effect, ‘in loco parentis’ during the school day signally failed (with a few notable exceptions) to discharge their duty of care towards me; indeed, a few colluded and even, on occasion, joined in. My own mother decided, with no evidence whatsoever, that the reason I was bullied was that I wasn’t tough enough. So she decided that she would toughen me up. YAY!! Great stuff, I was bullied at home as well as at school. It should come as no surprise that I finished my school career pretty badly damaged, and with a complete distrust of authority figures.

During my last year of school, I ‘gave my life to Christ’ and became an evangelical Christian, thanks to a person who became a dear, dear, friend. I absolutely don’t hold her responsible, in any way, for the things which I shall describe below – she has never been anything other than a true ‘Follower of the Way’ (of Jesus Christ), and always loved me unconditionally, as who I was, rather than as a ‘project’ or someone who needed to be ‘fixed’.

Even so, it took me more than thirty years to learn to trust anyone enough to share the secrets of my abused past. That I did, eventually, ‘get there’ was down to the patience and care of very good (church) friends, who were consistent and ever-faithful in their love.

So that’s a bit of background, which may serve to illustrate why what I describe below was so devastating – when it may seem quite trivial if read without the above caveat.

Several years ago, the Anglican church I belonged to at the time ran the ‘Living in Love and Faith’ course, alongside most of the rest of the Church of England. It was billed as a conversation around the topic of whether or not LGBTQIA+[2] people could fully belong to the church, and receive all the sacraments (including marriage). Cutting a long story short, our particular course started out as a conversation, but once the leadership discovered that most people on the course disagreed with their ‘conservative’ (reactionary?) stance on the topic, and were far more ‘liberal’ and ‘inclusive’ than the leadership wanted them to be, it began to be turned into some very heavy, uncompromising, and essentially ‘tone deaf’ teaching (I’m not sure teaching is the right word to use – hectoring might better suit what happened). Things were done, during the official sessions, to try to ‘colour’ the result – in direct contravention of the ‘rules’ under which the course was meant to be run.

The course culminated in an extra session which the vicar tacked on to the end of the course, ostensibly so that we could ‘discuss’ where ‘our’ church was going to land on this particular topic. When we all arrived, we were surprised to find that the doors (two sets of double doors) had been wedged open (which was definitely not how they’d been on any other evening). The first thing the vicar told us was that the doors were open because if any of us disagreed with anything he said it would make it easy for us to leave – ‘other churches are available’ being his exact words, reeling off a list of churches he thought might suit us better.

He then proceeded to harangue us with his interpretation of the situation – riding roughshod over the careful groundwork the course had laid, starting by expounding the Church of England’s definition of marriage, and carrying on to tell us exactly what the (English) Bible has to say about homosexuality (and telling us to ignore anyone who cast any doubt upon the correctness of the English version he’d chosen). Faces across the room became gradually stonier – from ordinary folk through to eminent theologians who work at the university. Eventually, he wound up.

The curate completely misread the room, and launched into a fulsome vote of thanks. There was a little desultory applause – from probably a fifth of the room; and a lot of upset and very angry faces. I had, over the course of several years, worked hard to learn Ancient Greek, so as to be able to understand the scriptures in one of their original languages; I’d also made a particular study of the verses of scripture which (so-called) theological conservatives used to deny membership of God’s kingdom to those who were LGBTQIA+. I had become convinced that actually, there was nothing in scripture which could possibly preclude their being full members of the church – indeed, if they couldn’t be members, then neither could anyone else! Being told I was wrong, so vociferously, by someone who I knew was only parroting what he’d been taught, hurt. It was easy to understand the naked anger of the academic theologians in the room, whose hard-won professional opinions had been dismissed over the course of a few minutes by sheer ignorance.

Afterwards, over the next days and weeks there was a steady queue of people making appointments to see him, to tell him why they thought he was wrong, and also to protest at the way he had treated us; that queue included me. When it came my turn, he flatly denied having wedged the doors open, or that he’d suggested any of us leave, or that he had harangued us with his interpretation. He suggested that I had misremembered not only the tone but that facts of what had happened and what he’d said. So passionate and definite was he that I began to doubt my memory of the event.

I met one of the theologians the next day for our regular fortnightly coffee date, and he asked how it had gone. I told him, and he assured me that my memory of the events was well-nigh perfect – and that what the vicar had tried to do to me was classic gaslighting.

Bear in mind here that the first ‘authority figure’ I ever really trusted was a clergyman (it took decades before I shared any details of the abuse I was subjected to as a child with anyone, let alone anyone in authority), and you might get an inkling of the sheer devastation caused by the revelation that I’d been gaslit by my vicar – a man I’d worked alongside closely (as one of his churchwardens) for six years and had learned to trust.

That vicar left, not long after – ‘shuffled sideways’ by the bishop into a role which kept him away from public ministry – the volume of complaints about him had proved too much for even the ‘tone deaf’ functionaries at the diocese.

His replacement was said to be a very ‘pastoral-minded’ man (which was what we all felt the church needed after the earlier debacle). All seemed well, for a few months, and once I felt I might be able to trust him, I made an appointment and told him about my previous experiences. He listened, expressed sympathy, and assured me that he was open-minded and that he wouldn’t hold any of my ‘less conventional’ views against me – in fact he was rethinking a lot of stuff himself, having a sister who had recently ‘come out’. So that all seemed fine.

We run a group for a bunch of students – they come round every Wednesday during term times (and those who’re here year round come every week whether it’s term-time or not); we feed them, listen to their woes, and hold open-ended, open-minded, theological discussions in which ‘anything goes’; it’s all run on ‘Las Vegas Rules’ – i.e. what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas; to our pretty certain knowledge, everyone has always respected those rules.

The vicar sent a message to tell us that he needed to see us urgently. When we met, he revealed that ‘one of the students’ had complained that we were teaching them heresy during the discussions. He wouldn’t tell us who’d complained nor exactly what they’d actually complained about, but that we had to stop doing it, or he’d stop us running the group (how the heck were we meant to stop doing something when he wouldn’t tell us what the something was?). We would meet again to review it in a couple of weeks when we’d had time to repent and rethink what we’d been doing – oh, and from then on we’d have to follow strictly a programme of discipleship he would set…

Because, after all, he was responsible for what was taught in his church and he would have to stand before God on Judgement Day and explain why he’d allowed heresy to be taught in his church. (And this is one reason amongst many why I don’t agree with the idea of an ordained priesthood. Maybe I’ll talk more about that another time!)

We were hurt and confused. We tried really hard, over the following weeks, to work out what the complaint might have been, and who might have made it – so as to at least try to meet his demands. Our conclusion was that, in the absence of any evidence, and knowing ‘our’ students as well as we do, actually, he was making it up, for reasons best known to himself!!

When the time came for the second meeting with him, we insisted on there being an independent witness present; we’ve known one of the current churchwardens for four decades or so, and trust her; happily she agreed to be present. In the face of this ‘witness’, his tune changed and he ‘backed down’ almost entirely from his previous stance – he didn’t go as far as admitting that there hadn’t been a complaint, but he might as well have done.

But I can’t trust him any more… Despite his best efforts to be friendly and ‘open’, I’m not playing his game… I’m keeping my distance, and not falling for his ‘niceness’ – I know it’s an act – all he’s interested in is having power over others, and in building his pathetic little empire of sycophants. I remain unsure of where I stand, and not a little hurt. I’ve more or less stopped attending – unless someone we know is being baptised, or something like that. We’re still running a group for students – but almost entirely independent of the church’s scrutiny; recruitment isn’t a problem – ‘our’ students bring more students, who become ‘our’ students in turn.

A short time later, that same clergyman also ‘received’ (or so he said) an allegation of ‘inappropriate sexual behaviour’ against someone who, as a student, had been part of our group, and had stayed in the area and become a close friend. He was henceforth banned from all ‘ministry’ (even from serving on the tech team, presumably in case he ‘corrupted’ anyone by the way he changed the words on the projection screens or something). We know our friend; we knew, right from the very first moment, that this accusation had to be false. The situation got really messy, until, eventually, in the face of opposition from our friend and his fiancée, and with us acting as ‘chaperones’ at a meeting, the vicar again backed down.

The very next day, he revealed that ‘the diocese’ had now determined that the allegation was false and there was no case to answer (and no, none of us were allowed to know who’d made the allegation, what it was, what evidence there was, and nor were we ever party to the supposed ‘report’ from the diocese). Nevertheless, our friend would not be allowed to rejoin any church ministries until he had receiving counselling (from the vicar), to educate him on what constitutes ‘appropriate behaviour’. Our friend has since left the church, and wants nothing whatsoever to do with it – and I absolutely support him in that.

Personally, I think it all points to yet another ‘fantasy’ on the part of the vicar, and I don’t suppose he ever reported it to the diocese… He just wanted to exercise control over someone… And who cares whether he hurt them, destroyed their trust, or anything – so long as he had his pathetic little power trip. And I wonder – was the second incident a further attempt to ‘get at’ us, via our friend?

At this point, personally, I have decided to adopt an old saying as my ‘motto’ for dealing with clergy: ‘fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me’.  It’s not happening again – I’ve lost all trust in them.

Fuck the lot of them.

I hurt because the trust in authority which I’d ‘learnt’ over so many decades in the church has gone; I’m angry that clergymen of all people have been the ones to betray my trust; I’m grieving because I’ve effectively lost the family I’ve been part of for over forty years; I’m lost – I don’t know where I belong any more, if I belong anywhere. And all because of the ‘power trips’ of two ‘little Hitlers’.

I’m still passionate about Jesus Christ, and I still count myself as a (rather flawed) ‘Follower of the Way’ (to use the ancient phrase), but I think I would consider being called a Christian insulting, if that’s really what christians are like.


Header image shows a suitably dark picture of York Minster, one of the Church of England’s cathedrals.

Footnotes

Footnotes
⇧1 Except just a single, general, observation regarding my main and ongoing reason for including this essay in my blog series: This kind of disgusting behaviour in churches is exactly why I began this series, and exactly why I will continue to share stories of people doing dreadful things to innocent people, in the very place where, more than anywhere else, individuals should be cared for, honoured, nurtured and above all loved. There is no excuse. These stories need to be put out there!
⇧2 The ‘LGBTQIA+’ acronym means ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (or questioning), Intersex, Asexual’, and the plus sign refers to other sexualities that are not specifically mentioned in the acronym.

A Dark Testimony VI – Christy’s Story

This entry is part 27 of 41 in the series The Problems of Evangelicalism
Trigger Warning – Contains stories of severe spiritual and religious abuse and trauma. You have been warned!

Here is a heart-rending testimony from my dear friend, Christy Lynne Wood; a lady whom I have never met in person but nevertheless I count as a friend because we support each other’s online ministries remotely.

Christy came from a background in the ‘Institute in Basic Life Principles‘ (IBLP) group, which I would name as a cult in just about every way[1] and founded by Bill Gothard in 1961. (That’s before I was born!) In common with many other Christians with whom I have had positive online interactions over the last decade or so, Christy is therefore a cult survivor. She has had the courage to identify and name the problem, and to do something about it. And now, she blogs about her wisdom and experiences. My heart always rejoices when I see a notification in my inbox telling me that she has published another blog post!

Christy’s post contains things that parallel closely many of the previous ‘Dark Testimony’ articles in my series ‘The Problems of Evangelicalism‘, and so I have now included it in that series. Although not strictly-speaking an Evangelical church, some of the IBLP group’s teachings have been gradually and insidiously introduced into modern Evangelicalism – such is the cross-pollinating nature of religion, even across different denominations – and so their attitudes have also been incorporated into Evangelicalism, including Christy’s old church, where IBLP principles were held by most of the families in the congregation[2]. That’s another reason why this is relevant to the series. In common with all Evangelical or pseudo-Evangelical groups, these are the sorts of things they don’t want you to know about. And that’s the biggest reason of all why they should be shared in public!

Anyway, Christy is herself an experienced teacher and an excellent writer who clearly and indeed prophetically expresses what is on her heart. Other than this short introduction, I need add no more to what Christy has to say. I’m sure you’ll find her story helpful.

Over to Christy:


Seven Years Ago Our Bubble World Shattered

Yet another story of spiritual abuse and religious trauma in the church

Telling My Story

Seven years ago, on March 9th 2017, our little Christian bubble world finally splintered into pieces. But we were forced to pretend everything was fine for two more months.

This is the first time I’ve purposefully and clearly written about this part of my story. I’ve hinted at it, skittered around it, and gave vague suggestions, but today I’m telling the truth. It’s a weird combination of re-traumatizing and validating.

I’ve had seven years to process, seven years to learn I’m not alone, and seven years to try and pick up the pieces so that I can heal. It’s not just my story though, it’s also my husband’s story and he has dealt with it differently.

So today this is for all of you who have faced spiritual abuse and religious trauma and been able to heal and grow, but it’s also for those of you who haven’t. It’s for those who’s faith has been shattered, who’s trust has been destroyed, and who struggle to step foot into a church. I want you to know that I see you and feel immense compassion for your pain. We all experience trauma differently and there is no “right way” to move forward (despite what the Christianese phrases tell you).

I met my husband at a Christian summer camp. We worked together at camp for a couple of years, so going into Christian ministry of some sort seemed like the thing to do. We were young, idealistic, and passionate about serving God. Four weeks after getting married, we loaded up a moving truck and our junky, little Honda Accord and took off for the state of Wyoming.

The town of LaGrange doubled in size for nine months of the year while the students were in town. In the summer it went back to the original 322 residents plus a few married couples like us. We spent three years in the Wyoming prairie surrounded by more cattle than people while studying at Frontier School of the Bible.

Having met at camp, we originally had dreams of doing camp ministry. Then my husband landed a part-time youth pastor job at a “local” church forty-five minutes away. We did everything as a team back then so youth pastoring a bunch of junior high kids was fun too, especially since the church ran a rustic camp for three weeks each summer.

After graduation, we came back to Michigan and started an internship at the camp where we first met hoping to eventually come on as full-time staff. Three summers and two babies later, we realized—much to our disappointment—that there was no potential for a job there. However, the church we’d been attending for the last couple of years needed a youth pastor. It seemed like the perfect open door, so we walked through.

Full-Time Ministry

Within the first few months there were red flags. But we were young, idealistic, and filled with the belief that this was God’s plan. It didn’t hurt that we’d just been used and abused at the camp where we interned, so the church felt healthier to us. It was easy to make excuses. Maybe we were just misinterpreting things. The senior pastor was probably just trying to make jokes and didn’t mean the hurtful things he said about my husband from the pulpit.

Sometime within our first year at the church, the senior pastor took a much anticipated three month sabbatical. I think he expected the church to fall apart without him around. Instead it thrived. My husband was relational, organized, and passionate. He never meant to try and usurp anything, but there was tension when the senior pastor came back that simmered under the surface for the next four years.

We saw flaws pretty quickly at the church, but we hoped that God would use us to help heal them. We knew that no place was perfect and we were willing to ignore or make excuses to keep the peace. Sadly, I’m much more realistic and skeptical these days.

man in black pants and pair of brown leather lace-up shoes sitting on brown carpeted stairs inside room
Photo by Ben White

There was tension between my husband and our senior pastor within the first year of working together. My husband believes that everything should be done with excellence. He is not afraid to push back when he feels things are unethical or wrong which earned him the nickname of “Pastor Picky.” The senior pastor had been in charge for enough time to want to keep power in his own fist. He didn’t appreciate criticism of any kind and had surrounded himself with elders who were either “yes-men” or solidly on his side. I didn’t know it at the time, but this is a pattern for abuse within the church.

It was never a healthy situation. My husband always struggled. But we loved the people at the church. The youth group was growing. It looked successful on the outside. I think we also like the title of being in ministry. It was part of our identity.

It All Started at Camp

I decided to back to camp for a couple of summers as a health officer. I should never have gone back. I knew how we’d been treated during our internship. I swore when we left that I was done. But I loved camp.

I’d found freedom in Jesus there. I’d met my husband there, my babies had been born there, and my dad was currently working on staff as the maintenance manager.

So I loaded up my two small children and we spent two summers riding around on a golf cart, doing clean cabin checks, handing out meds and Band-Aids, and comforting homesick campers. My husband worked at church during the day and then came and spent the evenings with us. Parts of those summers were amazingly fun! I’d always dreamed of being the health officer. I had a golf cart. My children thrived. I loved supporting the young adults on staff. But there were dark clouds too, especially the second summer.

I should have handled everything differently. But I was not the same person back then. I was still stuffing my leadership gift and passionately avoiding conflict. I was still trying to be sweet and not strong.

I should have confronted the abuse I witnessed. I should have boldly stood up for the broken people. I should have challenged the unethical behavior and the potential affair. But I didn’t. Instead I talked to other people who also noticed. We tried to figure out what to do together. And because we noticed a problem, we became the problem. I was labeled a gossip while the true problems were ignored.

I should have quit half-way through the summer. But I didn’t.

People who were involved in the mess at camp were also from our church, so the summer trouble followed us back. Big time.

And Followed Us Back to Church

I was distraught about what I’d witnessed at camp and also about the abuse my dad had experienced. (Little did I know that the exact same things would happen to us.) Seeing that I was a wreck, our senior pastor offered to counsel me. I use that word in the loosest possible way. For six weeks I sat in his office and spilled everything to him. He took what I said, tried to gaslight me, and then instead of protecting me, told everything to the other person who was at camp with me. I’ve never had an enemy before, but I did after that summer.

We tried—my husband and I. I knew that I hadn’t handled everything perfectly. I’d made mistakes, and I tried to reconcile. But it went from bad to worse. I was still reeling from the spiritual and emotional abuse I’d experienced at camp, still broken by what had happened to my dad and other summer staff members. Still upset that what looked like an affair was being ignored. Our pastor was the only one I could share with because he wouldn’t let me tell anyone else. And even though he was also abusing me, at least I had someone to talk to. Then he went on a mini-sabbatical for a month because they were adopting a child from overseas.

I honestly thought he told me that I could tell our new associate pastor and his wife if I needed to talk to someone while he was gone. And I didn’t tell her about the affair, just about the abuse I’d witnessed. She was a licensed counselor and I thought she might be able to help. Like any sane person would be, she was horrified at what I shared. So she told her husband. Who told the senior pastor when he got back. And I got in trouble.

I was called a gossip again. I was kicked out of women’s ministry with no hope of going back. I was no longer allowed to sing with the worship team. Every Monday, no matter what I did or didn’t do, the senior pastor would yell at my husband about how terrible I was and how I wouldn’t change.

Because he couldn’t break me. I refused to take all the blame. I knew that what happened at camp was wrong. And that what was currently happening was wrong. I refused to stop noticing the problem.

These were the hardest months of my life. They nearly destroyed me. I felt like the woman caught in adultery just waiting to be stoned.

We Should Have Quit

We prayed about quitting. We should have. But we loved the people. We loved the teenagers we worked with. We believed that God could work a miracle in the heart of the senior pastor. So we stayed. Until we couldn’t stay any more.

Eventually my husband was called into a meeting and told that we didn’t have chemistry with the senior pastor and therefore we were being forced to resign. It was March 9th. He was informed that the elders wouldn’t be telling the church until May and that if we said anything before that, or told the truth about what had been happening, we would be kicked out immediately with no severance package.

person looking out through window
Photo by Noah Silliman

We should have quit right then and there. But we didn’t because we were poor, emotionally ragged, and had two small children to feed.

For two months we carried this horrible secret. And every Monday my husband was told how awful I was being even though I was just literally hiding in the church basement making coffee every Sunday. It was the only ministry I was allowed to do. My husband endured verbal, emotional, and spiritual abuse during this year from hell. But we didn’t have the words to describe it as abuse back then.

During these two months, our pastor decided that I was such a mess that I needed professional help, so he sent me to Miriam. At the beginning of the first session I had three questions for her. I wanted to know if she was familiar with Bill Gothard’s teachings, if she thought they were wrong, and if she would promise to keep everything I said confidential from my pastor. When she confirmed those things, I poured out my heart for forty-five minutes. At the end Miriam looked at me and said four beautiful words, “Christy, you’ve been hurt.”

It was the first time someone validated me instead of blaming me. The church paid for eight beautiful sessions with her. I finally realized I was being abused and not going crazy. Sure enough, our pastor called after the first session, but Miriam had heard enough and refused to talk to him.

The End

Eventually they told the church. The senior pastor called a church wide meeting to announce “God was calling us elsewhere.” People were upset and confused. But we didn’t tell them the truth. We stayed quiet. The church originally asked us to stay through July, then it changed to the beginning of June. Shortly after our resignation was announced, we were told to stop coming to church at all because we were too sad and it was making everyone else sad. So it all just ended.

We got our severance, they got our silence, and we lost our community, our friends, our children’s godparents, and our identity.

Why Tell This Story?

There are plenty of people who question the validity of telling these kinds of stories. They push back by asking about motives, suggesting exaggeration, or claiming that we need to stay quiet “to protect God’s name.”

But the sheer amount of these stories says otherwise.

I’ve realized over the past seven years that for every story that goes public, there are probably hundreds that never get shared. For every one pastor who is exposed for being abusive and controlling, many others will go on abusing without being caught or stopped. This kind of thing is an epidemic in the church right now. I’ve read some wonderful and validating books. My favorites are in the picture below.

Not only do we need to tell these stories for accountability, but we also need to tell the stories so that those who have experienced this type of abuse can recognize that they are not alone. Reading Beth Allison Barr’s story of her husband’s forced resignation in The Making of Biblical Womanhood was eerily familiar—to the point where I wondered if they pass around a script. Hearing the stories on The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill validated my own.

It is helpful to know that we are in good company even if we are all a bit mangled.

Stronger than Ever Before

Personally, I’ve risen from these ashes with new strength. I see through lies faster, approach Christianese with more cynicism, and am quicker to call out abuse. But I’m also gentler and have less answers for those who have been through hell and come back. I have more compassion and empathy. I will sit and cry with you and say nothing.

My own faith in Jesus is more solid than ever. But I will also stand up and quit next time so that I can tell the truth. This abusive control we are experiencing is not Jesus and it needs to stop now.

If you have been spiritually abused, I just want you to know that you are not alone and it’s not your fault. You have been hurt.

Looking for God’s Grace

I’m going to close with Miriam’s ask for me after that first counseling session. She wanted me to look for God’s grace each day. It might be in a sunrise, or a baby’s smile, or a small green leaf poking out of the dirt.

That was something I could do.

Can you find it too?

macro photography of green grass
Photo by Emmanuel Mbala


Thank you, Christy, for your gracious and indeed enthusiastic permission to reblog your post! As you will see, I have just copied it and pasted it more or less straight in to my blog  😊

Here is the link to the original article

Grace and Peace to you all ❤️

Footnotes

Footnotes
⇧1 They market themselves initially as a sort of personal improvement course, but this is just the ‘hook’; the ‘gateway’ to deeper involvement and eventual indoctrination, enslavement and abuse – some of which is of course sexual. They call themselves ‘non-denominational’, which has increasingly – to me at any rate – come to suggest strongly that they are some sort of cult. Certainly, the church I wrote about in my recent article ‘I Was A Stranger‘ would claim to be non-denominational. The term always hoists red flags for me nowadays! Although they are not a fully Evangelical group (they differ from Evangelical doctrines in several ways), their methods are pretty much the same in many respects, and so I am using Christy’s story as a parallel to the exact same things that happen in Evangelical churches. In addition, the IBLP are also strongly into home-schooling which, while a valid method of schooling children where the children can’t otherwise access education (say if they are housebound due to a disability or something), in other cases is simply a means of isolating children from the outside world so that they can be effectively indoctrinated without any interference from reality. It seems that wherever humans gather in the name of Religion, these things happen.
⇧2 It might be relevant to mention at this point that the extremely problematic and yet very popular TV series, ’19 kids and counting’ (or whatever number of kids they’d reached at the time of filming 🤣), was about the Duggar family who were/are still themselves part of the toxic IBLP movement.