Religious Fundamentalism is not alone the domain of Evangelicalism. Take David, a commenter on this blog and my Facebook page. Here’s how the conversation with David started:
David: Jesus is real. He is God. And, He is alive. To deny that, is to deny the Truth.
Bruce: sigh So glad you stopped by to let us know that your flavor of ice cream is the one true ice cream. Now take your ice cream truck and keep on moving down that narrow, straight road you mentioned on Facebook. Blessed be the God of reason, forever and ever, amen. [At this point I thought David was an Evangelical.]
David: Sir, you claim you are not evangelizing for atheism. However, by posting these reports of alleged christian molesters, you are in fact, evangelizing for atheism, otherwise, you would also post stories of molesters from other beliefs. I don’t see that you are publishing reports of any muslim molesters, or atheist molesters, or hindu molesters, or Democratic party molesters, or any molesters from any other groups. No, you focus only on professing christians, because you want to harm the Church of Jesus Christ and more particularly Him and cause others to abandon the faith or never become a believer to begin with. You know what you are doing. So, you see, you are in fact, a liar. And, that would make you the son of you know who…
Becky added several comments.
Bruce: Funny that you are more concerned with my posting the reports than you are the reports themselves. Evidently preachers molesting children doesn’t bother you as much as an atheist making the public aware of such vile things. This blog focuses on Evangelicalism–as I told you on Facebook. I can’t be all things to all men, so I don’t try. I focus on Evangelicalism because it is the dominant American religion and one that I am most familiar with. If, through my writing, someone leaves Evangelicalism, good for them. However, I do not evangelize. I don’t go to Christian blogs/Facebook pages and leave atheistic comments/sermons (unlike you). That you impugn my character says more about you than it does me. I’m quite proud of the fact that my writing causes hemorrhoidal inflammation for people such as you.
David: Looks like I struck a nerve with you Bruce. Truth has a way of doing that to antichrist agenda driven people like you.
Bruce: Davey, my man, I hate to disappoint you, but you are little more than buzzing gnats swarming around my head on a warm summer day. Smack, end of annoyance. I presume, by now, you have read the comment rules. Please act accordingly.
David: Bruce. I notice in your blogs you have one concerning a molesting Catholic Priest. So, I caught you in another false statement. You said you are only concerned with reaching evangelicals. But, then you undermine that assertion by your Roman Church priest blog. So, I am proven right again. You are on the warpath against Christianity, the Church and Jesus Christ. Why not tell the truth Bruce? Why maintain the facade of honesty when you are not being honest?
Bruce: The focus of my blog is Evangelicalism — like 99% of my posts. On occasion, I write about other things: sports, politics, family, technology, and yes priests who rape/molest children. That you would rather impugn my character than understand what should be easily understood by anyone with a fifth-grade education, reflects poorly on you and the Christ you say you serve. By all means, keep commenting. Your words are preaching a far louder sermon than any atheist could preach.
David: Bruce, the more you attack and deny, the more you prove my assertions. I wonder why you can’t see that. And, laughably you resort to the time dishonored atheist reaction of attacking the intellect of those with whom they disagree. Atheists cannot be gracious. They ALWAYS resort to personal attack of the intelligence of the Christians, alleging by implication that intelligence and intellect are a contradiction to belief in Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior of all, Who is God.
Bruce: I’m not gracious to assholes, nor do I need to be. And I don’t need to let them fill the comment section with bullshit. Bye, bye Davey. All further comments will be deleted.
Bruce: I should make it clear to readers that you are a Fundamentalist Catholic, not an Evangelical, proving that Fundamentalism can be found in all religious sects.
Geoff, Justine, and Suzanne added comments.
On to Facebook. It is harder to recreate the conversation flow on Facebook because David DELETED all of his comments. Yep, deleted every last comment. What follows is, at best, a partial transcript of what transpired on Facebook. Fortunately, Suzanne captured many of David’s comments for her Jerks4Jesus page.
David sent me the following message:
What is the point of these reports. Jesus said that wolves in sheeps clothing would infiltrate the Church. Paul wrote the same thing. So, no surpirse. And, anyone who does these things, has ceased being a follower of Jesus Christ at that point. Sinners can repent and be saved again. But, an apostate cannot. See Hebrews. Sir, you may feel smug at this point, thinking you are doing good in the humanist sense, but your real objective is to try to harm Christianity since you are no longer a believer, and have fallen away. My question is: were you ever a true believer, or was being a pastor merely a way to make a living? If you were a true believer, what caused you to fall away from the truth? Do you have some sinful behavior that you were not able to give up? Was it pride? Jesus is real, He is alive, and He is God. I know this for a fact. And, you probably do also, but you choose not to submit to Him.
I responded by telling David to read my blog.
Here’s some of the comments left by David that he has since deleted. Unfortunately, by deleting his comments, David also deleted some of my responding comments too.
David: Bruce, as you well know, the public is already well aware of the matter. The atheist media has had a field day and non stop reports and is reporting on how these non Christians posing as Christians have infiltrated the Church and committed these acts… But, you are fine with muslims and politicians doing the same. Interesting dichotomy. How do you intellectually justify that. And, by the way, they could not have been Christians when they committed those crimes. By definition, they ceased to be Christians or never were to have committed those acts. Read your Bible and you will see that it is impossible for a true follower of Jesus Christ to do such things. You must have bought into the once saved always saved lie when you were a pastor. Good night, pee wee. It must be way beyond your bedtime over there in never never land.
Bruce: They were Christians when they committed their crimes. Consensual adult sexual behavior is fine in my book. I don’t care one bit who fucks who, when, where and how. I do, however, despise men who use their places of authority to rape, sexually assault, and sexually manipulate children, teenagers, and adult congregants.
Bruce: No I’m not, but there are other sites that focus on Islam. Hey, here’s an idea….why don’t YOU start a blog and write about atheists and Muslims? Do something productive instead of trolling my page/blog.
David: Bruce, baby, you are one challenged individual. Do you ever tire of your childish antics?
David: Coward, you could not answer nor counter the truth of my assertions, so you blocked my posts on your blog page. That is so atheist of you. Another truth challenged professing atheist bites the dust. LOL
David then took to attacking Suzanne.
Realizing that I was quite snarky in our exchange, I thought I would make one, and only one, good faith effort to answer whatever questions David wanted me to answer.
Bruce: David Collins, second request, “So, here’s your chance. Give me your top five questions/challenges and I’ll answer them on my blog. No more bullshit from you, David. This is your one and only chance. Take it or go fornicate with yourself. “
And, in classic Fundamentalist fashion, David responded this way in an email to me:
Listen, Satan. I have already blown your assertions to smithereens on facebook. If you like, go get that dialogue and post it, including the ones you deleted like the coward you are. My facebook responses on your facebook page, to your assertions, taunts and lies, completely obliterated you and your false paradigm. You lost. Deal with it. I have no reason to repeat myself in your ludicrous blog. I have already exposed you for the liar and hypocrite you are. Deal with it.
What lesson have I learned from my “discussion” with David, the Fundamentalist Catholic? That it is almost always a waste of time to engage Fundamentalists. Their minds are shut off from anything that doesn’t fit their narrow, defined “Biblical” worldview. Their goal is to evangelize, not engage and learn. In David’s mind, I am an anti-Christ, a false prophet. I am worthy of death, punishment, and the Lake of Fire. I KNOW they think all these things about me, yet I still, at times, allow myself to be drawn into foolish, fruitless discussions.
David is a good example of why I have a one-and-done rule on comments from evangelizing Christians — particularly Evangelicals. In David’s case, he is an outlier — a Fundamentalist Catholic.
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.
Connect with me on social media:
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.
ugh Why can’t these types be polite? No, it’s ugly words and then he expects you to take whatever he says, no matter what. He proves that his religion doesn’t cause people to be good.
I wondered when you would encounter one of these.
Yep, Catholics can be obnoxious fundamentalists as well. In fact even more so than pentecostals in my experience.
David displays obvious signs of unrealistic fears that his bubble might pop and his entire life would have been meaningless which means he’d have to start life’s journey again minus the mythology. Terrifying thought for him; so rather just put on the blinkers and pretend it’s all grand.
It’s a serious problem for David that he can’t come to terms with Christians acting reprehensibly. To him, as with so many, the moment they transgress in some way they cease to be Christians. That’s not how life works. If you’re a member of a club and you break the rules you can be barred from the club, have your membership revoked, but what can’t be done to you is to retroactively revoke your membership. To assume David’s stance is to deny people the chance ever to change their minds. If being truly saved means that you can never change your mind then nobody, David included, can regard themselves as truly saved until the moment they die.
We call these folks “Trad-cats” 🐈⬛. Traditional Catholics, which implies folks like me are not “traditional” enough. Many of them are Traditional Latin Mass only (which I have no issue with if that is your thing, just stop with the superiority complex).
Sexual abuse in all its forms must be exposed and dealt with. I don’t see what David’s problem is. I can still admire the beauty of an old Catholic Church and participate in mass while demanding accountability for the priests and bishops who fostered an environment that led to the sexual abuse of thousands of children over decades of the 20th and 21st century, across many countries. Let that soak in for a minute, David. How in hell can you castigate Bruce for reporting this? Why don’t you castigate the priests and bishops who allowed this shit to happen?
Yes we are now finding out elements of Hollywood, particularly the children’s network Nickelodeon, fostered a sexually abusive environment on the set of some of the children’s shows. This is being exposed in the media, too. I agree in the respect that all sexually abusive organizations should be held to the same level of accountability. But here’s the thing, David. Most secular humanists would agree. The problem in your mind is that religious organizations themselves should get a pass, and just focus the abuse on the perpetrators themselves instead of the organizational culture that allowed the abuse to fester.
Okay, I’m finished. I’m going back to mass, now.
There are a lot of places that are shedding the light on sexual abuse. Just because Bruce focuses on SA committed by Christians doesn’t mean he endorses SA by any other groups. Bruce’s focus is on his specialty – all things Christian fundamentalism (particularly IFB and IFB-adjacent groups). How is this difficult to understand?
I don’t know how much of this blog, let alone its comments, David has actually read. A few years ago, Bruce posted articles about my being sexually abused by a Roman Catholic priest. He also posted other articles I wrote about other sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, in other Christian denominations and in Orthodox Jewish, Amish and other religious communities. I wrote about them in part because I am somewhat familiar with them. (I was part of an Evangelical church for several years, taught in an Orthodox yeshiva ans spent time with an Amish family.)
The reason—which Bruce shares—for exposing the misdeeds of religious leaders in the communities we know is to hold them accountable. Nothing more or nothing less. If what we do encourages someone else to speak of their experiences of sexual abuse, that’s good. I do (and I suspect Bruce does) not “have it in” for Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Catholics or anyone else.
Nor are we trying to “push an agenda.” One thing I know from being a trans woman is that the moment you speak of your experiences or identity, someone accuses you of “pushing an agenda”’or they label you as “angry” or worse. (The Black women I know all have stories about that.) Meanwhile, heterosexuals can display pictures of their spouses and kids, Catholics can wear crucifix pendants and other Christians can put “Jesus is my co-pilot” bumper stickers on their cars and no one accuses them of “pushing an agenda” or attacking anyone else. Oh, and no one impugns their character or says they are “acting like typical “ heterosexuals, Catholics or Evangelicals.
That’s a good point Velovixen. I have a small crucifix on my desk at work (like 2-3” tall) that faces me. I’m sure others who sit in my office can see it, but it is not on prominent display. It is more for me than for others.
My view is that if I am able to have this small religious item on my desk, then I must advocate for others to have the same right of self expression. I am not a fan of “nobody can display anything” rules because then we are no longer the USA. At the same time, what we display should be reasonable and we should always respect the right of our fellow neighbors to display what is important to them. Of course there are exceptions, like obvious symbols of hate. I know these lines can get blurred when it comes to “religious items”, but we have to sort that out. I also am a big advocate for people displaying support for causes they care about, especially if it is for marginalized groups. If I have the right to profess my religion, then others have the right to express their support for advocacy for LGBT rights, minority rights, etc. and without being labeled as “angry”, etc.
Which is why debating fundamentalists will never work. Only self-reflective honesty can wake them. But like political debates, religious debates do make for entertaining reading.
In spite of what David said, your “Black Collar Crime” series has covered sexual abuse by a Muslim teacher and a Buddhist teacher. I remember commenting on both those posts.