As many of you know, I had major surgery on my spine in August. By all accounts, the surgery was a success. Three months later, I am still recovering from the surgery. That said, I am being hammered on every side by chronic pain, gastroparesis, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI), fibromyalgia, and degenerative spine disease — all of which are incurable. These diseases are my cross to bear. My cross is increasingly heavy, leaving me, some days, in despair. I am also having a blood pressure problem. I am on three blood pressure medications, yet it wildly fluctuates. My primary care doctor made several adjustments to my medications, hoping this will lead to better numbers.
Thanks to a major gastroparesis flare-up and EPI, I am constantly nauseous, and since October 1, I have lost twenty-five pounds. I am on protein supplement shakes so I get enough calories in my diet.
For these reasons, my ability to write is limited, as I am sure you have noticed. My writing production has dropped precipitously. There’s little I can do other than hope for a better day. I saw a new pain doctor who put me on a buprenorphine patch, which is slowly being titrated. The doctor required that I stop using cannabis, which had helped with my pain and nausea. The doctors giveth, the doctors taketh away.
I am woefully behind on answering emails and sending thank-you notes to donors. I apologize for my tardiness, but there’s nothing I can do to change things. I hope things get better soon, and if and when they do, I will do my best to catch up on my correspondence. In time, I hope I can return to a fuller writing schedule. For now, what you see is what you get.
By the way, Polly will have her right knee replaced on December 30. She will be off work for eight weeks.
I appreciate your understanding as I navigate this new normal in my life.
Your kindness, love, and support are greatly appreciated.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
The Black Collar Crime Series relies on public news stories and publicly available information for its content. If any incorrect information is found, please contact Bruce Gerencser. Nothing in this post should be construed as an accusation of guilt. Those accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty.
Evangelical pastor James Cowan was recently sentenced to fifty years in prison for raping three of his minor children. You can read my report on his vile crimes here. Cowan’s ex-wife, Mary Cowan Miller, has now been arrested and charged with permitting the abuse of a minor and endangering the welfare of a minor in the second degree.
A Winthrop woman, 41-year-old Mary Miller, also known as Mary Cowan, was arrested on Monday, November 18, 2024, and charged with permitting the abuse of a minor and endangering the welfare of a minor in the second degree. The charges stem from her alleged failure to report and prevent the sexual abuse of three minor children in her care.
According to a police affidavit, James Cowan and Mary Cowan are the parents and legal guardians of the three victims involved in the case, as well as other children who were living in the home at the time of the alleged abuse. In an interview with law enforcement on March 12, 2024, Mary Cowan reportedly admitted to learning about the abuse on February 1, 2024, when the victims disclosed the allegations to her.
The affidavit states that after the victims informed her of the abuse, Mary Cowan returned home with her husband, James Cowan, and the victims. During the same interview, Mary also allegedly told law enforcement that James had admitted to her that he had touched the victims inappropriately.
Despite knowing about the abuse, Mary Cowan reportedly did not contact law enforcement immediately. She claimed that after learning of the allegations, she suffered a seizure in the laundry room of her home. However, police records indicate that she made no further attempt to notify authorities. Instead, she reportedly contacted her oldest daughter on February 1, 2024, to discuss the allegations. Mary Cowan was reportedly still living with James Cowan when he was arrested on February 2, 2024.
Mary Cowan’s failure to act to protect the children or report the abuse led to the charges against her. She was taken into custody on Monday and is facing serious criminal charges for failing to prevent further harm to the minors involved.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Most Bible scholars outside of the Evangelical ghetto believe the Pentateuch/Torah — the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy — was written by multiple authors over centuries. Many Evangelicals, on the other hand, believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch — an absurd claim if there ever was one. If you are unfamiliar with why this position is absurd, give the Wiki on the subject a read.
Thinking that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible leads to all sorts of apologetic gymnastics and wild explanations for things in the text that make Mosaic authorship an impossibility. Is Moses authored the book of Deuteronomy, explain chapter 34, verses 4-8:
And the Lord said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither. So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord.And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated. And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.
If Moses wrote Deuteronomy, how is it possible he also wrote his obituary? Absurd, right? I know all the explanations Evangelicals give to explain how this is possible, but none of them seem plausible. No, it is far more likely that an unknown author tacked on his account of Moses’ death long after he died. Problem solved, but many Evangelicals can’t accept that explanation because Bible literalism forced them to accept that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and he somehow mentioned his demise before he died, centuries after his death.
Here’s another. Take Numbers 12:3:
(Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)
If Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he sure had a high opinion of himself. the Bible has a lot to say about the sin of pride, does it not? No, it is far more likely that an unknown author added this description of the humble, meek Moses long after he was dead. Of course, if you are an Evangelical who believes in the transcription theory — God gave Moses the words to write, he was just a secretary — problem solved. Just remember, when facing an insurmountable problem with the Biblical text, appeal to faith and the supernatural. Problem solved.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
The Black Collar Crime Series relies on public news stories and publicly available information for its content. If any incorrect information is found, please contact Bruce Gerencser. Nothing in this post should be construed as an accusation of guilt. Those accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty.
James Cowan, the pastor of Little River Community Church (no online presence) in Winthrop, Arkansas, was recently sentenced to fifty years in prison for raping three of his minor children.
A Little River County man has been sentenced to 50 years in the Arkansas Department of Corrections after pleading guilty to three counts of rape.
James Edwin Cowan, 46, was charged with the rape of three minors, according to court records.
As part of a negotiated plea agreement, Cowan was sentenced Tuesday to 50 years in prison plus 30 years of a suspended sentence upon release, according to a news release from 9th West Prosecuting Attorney Jana C. Bradford.
Under Arkansas sentencing guidelines, Cowan will be required to serve at least 70% of his 50-year sentence years before being considered for parole.
The decision to offer a plea deal was made after consideration of the victims’ wishes, as well as the emotional and psychological toll that a trial would have placed on them, according to Bradford.
“This plea agreement was reached with careful attention to the needs of the victims, ensuring they would not have to endure the further trauma of testifying in a court trial. The safety and well-being of children is always a top priority for our office, and the resolution of this case reflects that commitment,” Bradford said.
“While no sentence can undo the harm done to these young victims, we hope this will provide a measure of justice and allow them to begin the long process of healing,” Bradford said.
Cowan also will be required to register as a sex offender should he ever be granted parole.
“This case underscores the critical importance of protecting vulnerable children from abuse and holding those who commit such heinous crimes fully accountable, ” Bradford said.
He was the former pastor of Little River Community Church in Winthrop, Arkansas.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
According to Bible literalists, God created the universe in six twenty-four-hour days, 6,025 years ago. During the six days of creation, God created the first man, Adam, from the dust of the ground, and then created the first woman, Eve, from one of Adam’s ribs. Of course, as science clearly shows, these claims are myths. Nonetheless, countless Christians across the world, and most Evangelicals in the United States, believe these claims are true. They must believe these things because their view of Scripture as inspired, inerrant, and infallible demands it. This is why you find Evangelicals defending such abhorrent behaviors such as rape, murder, slavery, and genocide.
Adam and Eve had two sons Cain and Abel. It is assumed that Mr. and Mrs. Adam had other children, including daughters, but outside of a third son born later named Seth, the Bible mentions no other children. Adam and Eve’s children had children of their own, so a big question is who they had sex with. Their mother? Their unnamed sisters? Women who lived on Earth already when they were born? Fallen angels? Space aliens?
In Genesis 4:1-8 we find a story about Cain murdering Abel:
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
Upset over a rejected offering to the Lord, Cain killed his brother. The Lord was not happy with Cain:
What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
Cain, a keeper of livestock, was cursed by God. The Lord said from that day forward Cain would be a failed farmer and a fugitive/vagabond.
Cain replied:
Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
Who, exactly, were the people that Cain feared would “find and kill him”? According to the Bible, the only people on Earth at the time were Adam, Eve, and Cain. Was Cain afraid his parents would kill him? In come Evangelical apologists with all sorts of explanations, but their protestations are nothing more than personal opinions. Remember, when you hook your wagon to Bible inerrancy — not adding to or taking away from the Word of God — you are forced to accept what the text says.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
A week ago, Detriot Lions kicker Jake Bates kicked a game-winning field goal over the Houston Texans. Afterward, Bates said:
That’s what I think I’m here to do is not make or miss or be a good kicker or a bad kicker but spread the love of Jesus. So … hopefully, I’m able to do that on the stage I’m given.
Bates diminishes his teammates, coaches, trainers, and everyone else in his life when he gives Jesus all the credit for kicking the field goal.
While I got the moment [and] while everybody was cheering and so happy, I want to acknowledge Jesus Christ. I tell you what, man, I cannot take credit for a gift like this. I really owe it all to him.
And I know that there’s millions of people around the world watching right now, and I just want to let you guys know that Jesus loves you so much. That’s all I’ll say about that.
As with Bates, Jones diminishes his win by giving all the praise, honor, and glory to Jesus. Not his manager, trainers, sparring partners, or anyone else, for that matter. Jesus won the match for him.
Both athletes diminish their own hard work, training, and skills. This sentiment is common among Evangelicals. Repeatedly told that without Jesus they can do nothing, Christian athletes give Jesus alone praise for what they, through years of discipline and training, accomplished. Wins are attributed to Jesus. Losses? Well, Jesus never gets credit for them.
Jesus, whom Christians believe is the virgin-born, miracle-working, executed, and resurrected-from-the- dead-son of God, is owed all the credit for what happens on the field, court, or ring. When asked why they give Jesus praise for everything, Evangelical athletes quote Bible prooftexts to justify their self-depreciation and humility.
No evidence is provided for their claims. Having spent their lives in Evangelicalism, such praise-shifting is expected. Mere humans are warned to avoid taking for themselves praise that only belongs to God. Never mind the countless hours spent training or the parents/coaches/trainers/teammates who devoted themselves to the success of the athlete. All the praise, honor, and successful sporting events belong to God. Choosing to praise yourself or others for your success is viewed as prideful.
I am an avid sports fan. I have yet to see Jesus on the field, court, or ring. These athletes sincerely believe, as the Bible states, “Without me ye can do nothing” or “With God all things are possible.” However, it is clear that game/match/bout winners and those who taught, trained, and coached them are mere facilitators for Jesus.
Such thinking leads to false humility. Christian athletes can be humble while at the same time giving credit to whom credit is due. Bates thinks being a good kicker plays no part in his success. Every successful field goal is an opportunity to put in a good word for Jesus. Same goes for Jones. Every landed punch, kick, and takedown is due to Jesus working in and through him.
I am not opposed to athletes being Christians or putting in a brief word for Jesus. However, I find the sermonettes used to give Jesus all the glory offensive and a denial of what happened during the game/match. Professional athletes typically have superior physical skills. If anyone deserves credit for their physical skills, it is their biological parents; people who, through DNA, passed on physical attributes most humans do not have. Coaches and trainers took that natural talent and shaped the player into a successful high school/college/professional athlete.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Female humans typically have two mammary glands, also called breasts. These glands provide milk for females to nurse their young. However, in many Christian countries, especially the United States, female breasts are sexualized. Evangelicals, in particular, have irrational beliefs about female breasts. Male humans also have underdeveloped mammary glands, but I can’t ever remember hearing a sermon condemning men for exposing their breasts. No, the focus is on female breasts, especially if the preacher sees a comely woman walk into church, distracting him from preaching the Bible. Nothing like boobs to distract a preacher from the Word of God, right? 🙂
We live in a culture where female mammary glands are sexualized; that breasts are treated as genitals are. Thus, Evangelical preachers demand women cover up their breasts lest their very existence distract men from God or cause them to lust. As readers will see in a moment, this includes women exposing their milk-producing mammary glands as they feed their infants. Women are expected to totally cover their breasts in public or church lest hapless Evangelical men lust.
Take Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen. Yesterday, Thiessen wrote a post titled Illogical Arguments. Fearful of seeing boobs in public, Thiessen demands nursing women cover their breasts and not nurse their babies where anyone can see them.
Thiessen writes (all spelling, grammar, and punctuation in the original):
When it comes to breastfeeding people have different opinions. Many unbelievers [including many Evangelical women] feel that women should be allowed to breastfeed in public. Most of their arguments are illogical and very limited. Take for example this point some unbelievers raise:
Firstly, breast-feeding is perfectly natural. It is one of the most natural things in the world. Numerous species across millions of years have breast-fed their young.
This is illogical because first, humans are not animals [humans are animals, as any non-Evangelical biology book will tell you]. The latter do not have a moral code to follow nor even know what morality is. Second, animals tend to have sex in public. If one wants to be consistent and not a hypocrite, then one must call public sex acts natural and should be allowed for public viewing without stigmentation [??].
Third, there are rules of decency and morality that humans must follow [really? where can these rules be found]. Animals do not have those rules or know what they mean. Why lower humans to the level of animals when we are clearly superior to them and have a different set of rules to operate by?
There are very good reasons why public breastfeeding is not allowed. Morality and decency are just two of them. [So, public breastfeeding is immoral? Which Bible command says that] Another reason is that public breastfeeding is very selfish. it is all about the women going me me me. [No, it is all about the baby, who, when hungry, says me, me, me.]
….
That is selfish and does not take into consideration anyone else’s views or feelings about public breastfeeding. [Yes, Derrick, your views or feelings do not matter.] Doing this natural act privately does not make a woman second-class or inferior, it simply shows that the mother considers other people. It is very awkward walking in a public place and coming across a woman breastfeeding. [Maybe for you, Derrick, but this is not a universal feeling.]
Women should not be putting others into that state. Then private breastfeeding protects women from being further objectified sexually as well as stopping women from tempting men and women to sin. [If you, Derrick, are objectifying breastfeeding women, that is your problem, and not theirs. If you, Derrick, get a boner when seeing a partially exposed breast in public, that’s your problem. Grow up.]
….
Morals and decency are not submissive to parental experience. parental experience is submissive to morality and decency. Actually, babies do operate by a schedule and parents have known about this for millenniums. [Says a man who knows nothing about raising children.]
It is just that the modern world has interrupted that schedule due to the busyness of adult lives. It is also interrupted by the false idea that women are made second-class because they cannot do their normal schedules until their children are old enough to not breastfeed.
Then opposition to this act is not about men’s rights. It is true that wives must obey their husbands [says who?] and no man in his right mind wants his wife exposing herself and putting herself in danger by whipping out her breast. [I must not be in my right mind; not that Polly ever “whipped out her breast” when feeding one of our children.] The husband and father do have the right to say where a woman can breastfeed. [No, they do not — ever.]
The woman has given her body to the man she has had sex with. It is not hers anymore, she does not have rule over her body. [Yes, she does. It is her body, not her husbands. You seem to not understand bodily autonomy. I am sure female commenters will straighten you out on this issue.] It is their [husbands] business what a woman does. What she does reflects on him and can either undermine or enhance his reputation as well as his qualifications. [OMG! Polly undermind my reputation by feeding Jason, Nathan, Jaime, Bethany, Laura, and Josiah in public.]
When it comes to motherly duty, there has never been a rule or guideline in those duties that women can publically breastfeed their children. It is not part of their duty. It is their duty to breastfeed but not in a position that makes them a public spectacle or embarrasses their husbands and family.
….
Then feeding a child is not the only priority of a mother. [When the child is hungry, it is.] Her top priority is her husband [no, the child comes first.] and she must be submissive to him, even in breastfeeding. [Good luck with that, Sherlock.] This illogical argument is nothing but an attempt to sin and defy God. [Really? Breastfeeding in public a sin? Chapter and verse, please. Women defy God when they breastfeed in public? Again, chapter and verse.]
Unbelievers are not content with pleasing God and want to do things their own way.
….
There is nothing wrong with scheduling one’s day so that the mother can be in a private location to breastfeed her child. Rescheduling does not undermine her priorities but gives her peace of mind. She is protecting her husband, her child, and herself.
Exposing oneself in public does open the door to more crimes against women. [Only from men like you, Derrick, who are lurking in the shadows.] One reason for saying that is that the woman is not sure who is watching her or who gets a fixation on her. Instead of making women more vulnerable to sexual crimes, we need to protect them better.
One way to do that is to teach women how to schedule their breastfeeding time so that they are not in danger of being victims of crimes. Why should society change because some minute minorities want public breastfeeding? [Do you seriously think that public breastfeeding is a “minute minority position? You need to get out more or travel to other countries where people don’t sexualize female mammary glands.]
No, it is time to put the minute minorities in place [Good luck with that. I dare you to tell a woman breastfeeding in public to put her breast away. I guarantee you that you will get more than your bargained for.] and keep them from encouraging and helping people to sin against God and others. [Derrick, if a woman breastfeeding in public causes you to sin, you are a pervert.] It is very unintelligent to say that non-parents should mind their own business on this topic. [Yes, mind your own fucking business.]
Non-parents are included and this is part of their business because public breastfeeding affects them as well. [How does it affect you, Derrick, other than you can’t keep your mind out of the gutter?] When you make it public, it is not a private matter anymore. Plus, the non-parent’s are under the same rules of decency and morality and those are impacted by making this natural act public.
As you can see, Thiessen sexualizes female mammary glands. He even goes so far as to say that women who breastfeed in public are vulnerable to sexual assault. When and where a lactating woman feeds her children is up to her husband, not her. As I have mentioned before, the female body is hyper-sexualized in Evangelical churches. Men are weak, pathetic horn dogs who can’t control themselves if they dare see a woman’s cleavage or, God forbid, her milk-filled mammary gland.
My partner, Polly, gave birth to six children. She breastfed all of them on demand until they were weaned. Polly sat on the front pew of the church, nursing her child while listening to her husband preach. She was discreet, but everyone knew what she was doing. Not one church member ever complained about her doing so or suggested Polly was being immoral. As a pastor, I saw countless women nurse their babies while I was preaching. I found it to be quite normal, never a distraction. Well, one time a woman nursing her child was a distraction. As I was preaching, a church member sitting three rows from the front, exposed her breast so her five-year-old daughter could stand there and nurse. I found her doing so quite amusing.
Breastfeeding in public is a normal, healthy human behavior. There is nothing sexual about the practice. Evangelical men such as Thiessen who sexualize the practice are the problem, not women. If Thiessen can’t keep his mind on Jesus while a woman is nursing her baby nearby, I suggest he immediately go to the nursery to protect his infantile self from lust.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Most Christians are familiar with the Old Testament story about David, King of Israel, and Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. 2 Samuel 11:1-5 says:
And it came to pass, after the year was expired, at the time when kings go forth to battle, that David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the children of Ammon, and besieged Rabbah. But David tarried still at Jerusalem. And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house. And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child.
David decided one evening to take a rooftop stroll. As he surveyed the city of Jerusalem, he noticed a beautiful woman taking a bath. Horniness aroused, David sent messengers to Bathsheba’s home and had her brought to him so he could have sex with her.
David’s dalliance with Bathsheba was not a one-time thing. David’s lust for Bathsheba was such that he was willing to do anything — including murder — to “have” her. David knew Bathsheba was married, and that the punishment for adultery was death, so he cooked up a plan to kill her husband, and thereby hide his crime.
David tried several times to get Uriah to go into Bathsheba and have sex with her, hoping to cover up the fact that she was pregnant with his child. Uriah, a dutiful soldier, twice refused offers to go home. David, now worried that his adulterous act with Bathsheba would become known, treacherously decided to have Uriah murdered.
And it came to pass in the morning, that David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah. And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die. And it came to pass, when Joab observed the city, that he assigned Uriah unto a place where he knew that valiant men were. And the men of the city went out, and fought with Joab: and there fell some of the people of the servants of David; and Uriah the Hittite died also.
With Uriah out of the way, David — a man the Bible calls, “a man after God’s own heart” — was free to “take” Bathsheba for his own. 2 Samuel 11:26,27 says:
And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord.
Either David planned to concoct a story, saying that Uriah had sex with Bathsheba before he left for the battlefield, and she became pregnant, or the time frame is short enough that David could marry Bathsheba and claim that she got pregnant soon after their marriage. Either way, David’s subterfuge was such that he faced no consequences for his adulterous behavior.
The Evangelical world has been afire over the claim that what David did was rape, not adultery. Some Evangelicals trotted out the tired argument that I heard countless times as a youth: that Bathsheba was to blame; that she was bathing in a place where David could see her; and that David can’t be blamed for sexually desiring a beautiful naked woman. I can imagine Lori Alexander saying these very words. Regardless, wasn’t David’s behavior with Bathsheba adultery? Didn’t David arrange things in such a way that Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, would be killed (murdered), and then didn’t he take Bathsheba to be his wife? How is it that David is exonerated of all these things? Does David’s stiff prick wipe out his culpability? Is the woman always to blame?
Other Evangelicals have argued that the law of God makes clear that David having sex with Bathsheba was NOT rape.
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
The inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God is clear:
If David and Bathsheba committed adultery, then both of them should have been stoned to death.
If David raped Bathsheba and she cried out, then only David should be executed.
If David raped Bathsheba and she didn’t cry out, both of them should have been stoned to death
Wanting to protect King David’s name, some Evangelicals argue that his sex with Bathsheba couldn’t be rape because the Bible doesn’t say she cried out. No crying out, no rape. And what about the adultery, then? Doesn’t the Law of God demand David be executed, along with Bathsheba? Crickets.
Evangelicals are fond of demanding everyone follow the Law of God; yet when it comes to one of their idols, David, obeying the Law is optional. I do not doubt that it was widely known what David had done with Bathsheba and to Uriah, yet it was an innocent baby that was punished for his “sin.” More on this later.
In 2 Samuel 12, the Lord sent the prophet Nathan to David to tell him a story:
And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die. And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.
This story should settle for Evangelicals the rape or adultery question. The rich man in the story took the poor man’s ewe lamb by force. The poor man would never have willingly given the ewe to the rich man. The poor man treated the ewe like one of his children. Is this not exactly what David did with Bathsheba? Bathsheba would never have willingly had sex with David. Uriah would never say to the King, “Sure, take my wife and fuck her.” It is clear, at least to me, that David raped Bathsheba, and in an attempt to cover up his crime, had her husband murdered. The fact that Bathsheba became David’s wife changes nothing. Bathsheba knew that if it became publicly known that she was pregnant with the child of a man not her husband, she would be executed. Both David and Bathsheba knew that they were burying David’s criminal behavior by getting married.
Evangelicals love to paint their God as just, holy, and righteous. Many of them, at least privately, believe LGBTQ people should be arrested and executed. The same goes for abortion doctors who perform abortions. Some Evangelicals go so far as to say that women who “murder their babies” should be executed too. While these positions seem extreme to rational, thoughtful people, when one’s brain is chained to the Bible, reason goes out the window. Yet, when asked why David and Bathsheba were not stoned to death for their crimes, Evangelicals suddenly start stammering and come up with all sorts of patently unbiblical justifications (i.e. Jesus’ lineage is through David: He [Jesus] shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. Luke 1:32 No David, No Jesus).
Some Evangelicals argue that God “did” punish David and Bathsheba. After Nathan told David the ewe story, he said:
Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. (2 Samuel 12:7-12)
I find it interesting that Nathan doesn’t mention David’s rape of Bathsheba. Instead, he focused on David’s murder of her husband. I thought sin was sin in the eyes of God. Regardless, David confessed his sin, and the Lord forgave him. Nathan said, “The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.” The law of God demanded David’s death, but God gave him a pass. Is it any wonder, then, that predatory Evangelical preachers, when caught with their flies open, think they can escape punishment for their crimes by saying, “My bad, Jesus.”
The summer before I left for college, a local preacher stopped by to talk to the father of a friend of mine. I was in the driveway working on a car. I knew that the preacher had left his wife and was carrying on with someone from his church. I point-blank asked him to explain his adulterous behavior. With nary a thought, he replied, “David had his Bathsheba, and I’m going to have mine!” I have never forgotten what this preacher said. His words perfectly explain how many Evangelicals view personal “sin.” Hey, no one is perfect. Look at what David did, yet he was still called a “man after God’s own heart.” Look at all the Psalms David wrote. Yes, he raped a woman and killed her husband, but look at all the good things he did for God.
David did suffer a bit for his crimes. Nathan told David that when Bathsheba gave birth to her baby, God planned to kill the child.
And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died.
Think about this story for a moment. David deserved to be executed for his crimes, and perhaps Bathsheba did too. But God, in his infinite wisdom, decided to kill an innocent baby instead. What an awesome God, right? I suspect some Evangelicals will try to put a gospel spin on this story. I know I did back in my preaching days. The innocent baby paid the ultimate price for the sins of David and Bathsheba. What a beautiful picture of what Jesus, the perfect lamb of God, did for us by dying on the cross for our sins. Woo Hoo! Ain’t God wonderful? No, he’s not.
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
The Good Book is clear; God will not punish children for the sins of their fathers. Each of us bears personal accountability for our actions. (I am aware that Exodus 20:5 contradicts Ezekiel 18:20. Dammit, I have a point to make! I’ll deal with Exodus 20 some other day.) Why did God give David a pass on his crimes?
From start to finish, the Biblical account of David and Bathsheba is one fucked up story. That many Evangelicals refuse to see David as a predator and rapist is troubling; especially those who argue that it wasn’t rape because Bathsheba didn’t scream or that she was a temptation that David couldn’t pass on. In times such as this, we are reminded that Evangelicals are a long way away from coming to terms with their warped, perverse views of women and human sexuality. As long as David is viewed as a hero, there’s no hope of progress; no hope of Evangelicals developing a sexual ethic that reflects twenty-first-century thinking.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
An Evangelical man named Gary sent me the following message:
im sorry but you are a fool…”the bible say a fool says in his heart there is no God…wait til you meet your maker one day and answer your “Maker for what you said!
First, Gary is not sorry at all. He’s angry over the fact that I said something that supposedly impugned or slandered his version of the Christian God. I have no idea what it was I said, but it sure got under Gary’s skin; so much so that he had to send a Facebook message to a stranger. What is it about Evangelicals that they think it is okay to send complete strangers messages or emails? I can say that I have NEVER even contemplated doing such a thing. It seems, at least to me, to be rude, boorish behavior.
Gary wants me to know that he considers me a FOOL! I wonder if Gary has ever read Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:22; you know, where Jesus warns people that calling someone a fool puts them in danger of hellfire? I’m sure Gary will say, the Bible says in Psalm14:1:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
See, God said it, so it is okay for Gary to call me a fool. Wait a minute, God (Jesus) also said not to call people fools. Which is it? Do we have a contradiction? Tell me it ain’t so, conflicting verses in God’s inspired, inerrant, infallible Word? Why, I have never seen such a thing! 🙂
Gary goes on to threaten me with God. Let me translate: Bruce, someday God is going to get you for the bad things you said about him! Then, you will be so sorry. My God is going to judge your sorry ass, fit you with a special torture-tolerant body, and then afflict pain, agony, and suffering on you for all eternity. And I am going to be standing over the pit of Hell laughing at you, Bruce, as you get everything you so richly deserve. No one says bad things about my God and gets away with it!
I wonder if Gary thought his threat would have any meaningful effect on me? Or is this more about him finding an outlet for his “righteous” anger; his outrage over the words of the Evangelical preacher-turned-atheist Bruce Gerencser? Surely, Gary knows that I think his peculiar God and all deities are mythical; I am no more scared of Jesus than I am of Bugs Bunny. Now, Elmer Fudd? I am scared of that crazy wabbit killer. But Bugs? He and Jesus are in the same category: characters created by human imagination. I don’t have the slightest worry about God “getting” me or opening a can of whoop-ass on me after I die.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
As an atheist, what do you make of the supernatural experiences of Marjoe Gortner who admits to being an evangelical fraud who was in it for the money, yet said he did experience healings and things he could not explain? I think also of a man named Richard Gallagher who is a well-respected psychiatrist trained at Columbia University. Gallagher is a Roman Catholic who definitely believes in demonic possession and professes to have seen it many times and has worked with Catholic exorcists. I ask this not to argue with your atheism, but what is your opinion? Did you ever experience demonic possession or any kind of supernatural things when you were a minister?
I have written about Marjoe Gortner in the past, Bruce, What Do Think of the Marjoe Gortner Story? While Gortner has repudiated his fraudulent past, he did have allegedly supernatural experiences he could not explain. What should we make of these unexplainable experiences?
Before attributing healings to God, proof of his existence must be provided. As a skeptic, I am not going to believe anything without sufficient evidence to justify a claim. When someone claims God did something, I am going to ask, “How do you know it was God that did this?” What empirical evidence can you provide that justifies your claim? Quoting the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is a book of claims; claims that require sufficient evidence to warrant belief. Gortner experienced things he couldn’t explain, but a lack of explanation doesn’t mean “God did it.” Gortner should continue to investigate these claims, but until he has evidence for them, at best, he should say, “I don’t know.” Of course, this approach is antithetical to how many, if not most Evangelicals, navigate the world. Questions and doubts are frowned upon. Certainty of belief is foundational to Evangelical Christianity. When is the last time you have heard a preacher say, “I don’t know.” Oh, these so-called men of God may privately have doubts and questions, but when they mount their respective pulpits, their words exude confidence and certainty.
The same goes for Robert Gallagher’s claims to have seen demonic possessions and exorcisms. How do we know Satan/demons exist? Are there other explanations for alleged possession behavior? As a pastor at Community Baptist Church in Elmendorf, Texas, I encountered several people the church and my fellow co-pastor, Pat Horner, claimed were demon-possessed. I concluded otherwise, believing both men were mentally ill. Prayers were uttered and exorcisms were performed, without success. What these men needed — professional psychological help — was never encouraged or offered. Horner regaled church members with stories of demonic possession from his missionary work in India and Mexico; of how he cast demons out of people. I questioned the truthfulness of these stories, but kept my doubts to myself.
Did I experience supernatural experiences as an Evangelical pastor? Sure, but I now understand that I was indoctrinated and conditioned to see the supernatural anytime I couldn’t explain something. “God did it” or “Satan did it” were common refrains when confronted with what I perceived to be experiences or behaviors I could not explain or understand. Instead of withholding judgment until sufficient evidence was garnered, I automatically assumed God or Satan/demons were the cause. Parishioners never heard me say from the pulpit, “I don’t know.” Not wanting to cause church members to lose their faith, I felt I needed to exude confidence, even when it was unwarranted.
During the deconversion process, my partner and I took a close look at the prayers we believed God answered on our behalf. We concluded that, with a handful of exceptions, our answered prayers could be explained without supernatural intervention. Either we answered our own prayers or other people did — no God needed. But, Bruce, you admit that there were a handful of answered prayers you could not explain! “God did it, right?” Certainly, that’s statistically possible, but not sufficient to convince us that a supernatural God supernaturally answered our prayers. If the existence of God hangs on a few unexplainable circumstances, that’s not sufficient evidence to convince us that said deity exists and is personally involved in our lives.
I am a skeptic and a materialist. If you want to convince me of the supernatural, I am going to insist you provide sufficient evidence for your claims. Anecdotes and personal experiences won’t cut it.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
