Menu Close

Category: Evangelicalism

Is Atheism a Religion?

Bruce Gerencser 6 Comments

It is not uncommon for Evangelical apologists to assert that atheism is a religion; that atheists put their faith in science. Apologists also claim that we all worship something, be it God, science, or self. Are any of these claims true?

Let me define atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. That’s it. From this starting point, atheists go on to believe all sorts of things. I am an agnostic atheist and a humanist. Atheism defines my view of God. Humanism defines the moral and ethical framework by which I govern my life. In no instance do I worship anyone or anything.

According to the dictionary, worship is the feeling of expression or reverence and adoration for a deity. The C.S. Lewis Institute defines worship this way:

Worship means respectful devotion—loving, honoring, and obeying someone who deserves our highest regard. Worshipping God means acknowledging and celebrating His power and perfection in gratitude.

Based on these definitions, do atheists worship? No.

Evangelical apologists also claim that we all put faith in something; that atheists put their faith in science. First, atheism and science are two different things. Atheism, as stated above, is the lack of belief in the existence of God, or gods. No faith is necessary to be an atheist. Either you believe God exists or you don’t. Many apologists wrongly connect atheism and evolution. Sure, most atheists accept evolution as a scientific fact, but accepting evolution is not required to be an atheist. Atheists believe all sorts of things, including woo. These beliefs, however, have nothing to do with atheism. Many Christians accept evolution as the best explanation for how our biological world operates. Should we then say that Christianity and evolution are connected? Of course not. So it is with atheism and evolution.

Faith: not wanting to know what is true.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Faith is defined as the trust or confidence in someone or something. Regarding science, I put my faith in men and women who have spent their lifetimes in various scientific fields. I lack the requisite education necessary to speak authoritatively on anything related to science. I know what I know, and, most importantly, I know what I don’t know. Some people have spent years getting advanced degrees in science, and after university, they have devoted their lives to specific scientific disciplines. I put my faith in their expertise; a reasoned faith that values expertise.

Religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a supernatural power or powers, especially a God or gods or a particular system of faith and worship. Based on these definitions, is atheism a religion? Of course not. Again atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God, or gods. Nothing more, nothing less. Atheism doesn’t have clerics, church buildings, Bibles, hymnbooks, or prescribed modes of worship. Atheists don’t have shrines or collect offerings to support houses of godless worship. I can’t think of any meaningful way that atheism is a religion.

American Atheists define atheism this way:

While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held (lack of) beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others. Similarly, many “interfaith” groups will include atheists. This, again, does not mean that atheism is a religious belief.

Sadly, Evangelicals, either ignorantly or deliberately, spread the lie that atheism is a religion. Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge are liars extraordinaire; men who go to great lengths to disparage atheists. How else do we “defend” their explanation of atheism:

Almost all atheists claim that, because (supposedly) there is no God, their own worldview is not a religion. Many of them would argue that they have a “nonbelief.”

One of the definitions of religion in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, however, is this: “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.”

Atheism certainly fits that definition, and many of its adherents are quite zealous about their faith system.

Atheists have an active belief system with views concerning origins (that the universe and life arose by natural processes); no life after death; the existence of God; how to behave while alive; and so much more. Honest atheists will admit their worldview is a faith. Atheism is a religion!

….

While atheism is a blind faith, its followers will still cry out, “We are not part of a religion!” Why do they plead this? First, if atheism were identified as a religion, atheists fear that their views might get kicked out of public places, like government-run schools. Second, these secularists will be less likely to be able to deceive children into thinking that their teachings (supposedly “neutral”) are not in conflict with the religious beliefs of students.

….

Anyone who claims that they are not religious and then makes judgments about religious topics (e.g., the deity of Christ, the existence of God, the morality regarding adultery, the truthfulness of the Bible, and so on) has made a religious statement. Though they may “claim” to be irreligious, they reveal that they are indeed religious when they attempt to refute another religious view.

….

Does atheism oppose the religious claim that God exists? Again, yes. Thus, atheism is religious.

I don’t have faith, faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don’t have evidence.

MATT DILLAHUNTY

As Evangelicals often do, Ham and Hodge conflate evolution and atheism. They are two separate propositions/claims. No matter how many times Ham and Hodge say atheism is a religion or requires faith, their claims are false. They have been corrected numerous times, but Ham and Hodge continue to lie about atheism.

Let me conclude with an excerpt from an Atheist Alliance International article titled Is Atheism a Religion:

‘Theism’ means ‘belief in a god or gods’. Believers usually sign up to the values and principles of a godly belief system: it’s an ideology. Theistic ideologies are commonly known as faiths or religions. Many ideologies have the suffix ‘ism’; for example, liberalism, socialism, and communism but, in the case of ‘atheism’, the ‘ism’ ending has merely been inherited from its root: ‘theism’. The prefix ‘a’ turns the meaning around to the negative, that is, ‘not a belief in a god’, so ‘atheism’ is as far from a faith or religion as it’s possible to get.

Atheism is not a belief system so that should end this article right here, but theists will likely not be satisfied. They might point to the things atheists and religions have in common: religions form churches, atheists form associations; churches and atheist associations appoint members to formal roles such as bishop and president; church members give offerings, atheists pay subscriptions; churches hold services, atheist hold meetings. Churches and atheists both have literature they value and people they admire.

The problem is, these are superficial similarities and if they make atheism a religion, they make political parties and table tennis clubs religions too. That is obviously absurd.

There is one organization that makes it their job to decide which group is a religion and which is not, and that’s The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the USA. Religions receive highly favorable treatment in the USA and the IRS wants to avoid giving these advantages to organizations that are not genuine religions. So the IRS has a set of criteria they apply to any group claiming to be a religion. The primary criteria are listed below with how atheist groups qualify [shown in parenthesis].

Distinct legal existence [Some atheist groups are legal entities.]

Recognized creed and form of worship [No creed or forms of worship.]

Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government [No ecclesiastical governance.]

Formal code of doctrine and discipline [No doctrine.]

Distinct religious history [No religious history.]

Membership not associated with any other church or denomination [Atheists may join any number of atheist groups.]

Organization of ordained ministers [No ministers of any kind.]

Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study [No courses of study.]

Literature of its own [No literature reserved for one group.]

Established places of worship [No worship.]

Regular religious services [No religious services.]

Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young [No instructing the young.]

Schools for the preparation of its members [No atheist schools.]

With only one criterion applicable to atheists (and that one all political parties and many clubs share), the IRS won’t be granting religious tax exemptions to atheist groups any time soon.

….

Why then do the religious so often claim atheism is a religion? We don’t know, you’ll have to ask religious people that question. Perhaps it is an attempt to drag atheism down to the level of a religion—a set of unsubstantiated beliefs, in a landscape where beliefs are held only on faith. If so, they would be completely wrong about that too.

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.

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.

Why Did God Choose Such an Ineffective Way to Communicate His Will?

Bruce Gerencser 3 Comments
Acts 2:38

One of many Christian salvation plans.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

Allegedly, the Bible is the very words of God. Thus, God says that he is not willing that any [man, woman, child] should perish but that all [men, women, and children] should come to repentance. If this is so, then why do the vast majority of humans past and present perish without repenting? Billions and billions of people have died without repenting. If God isn’t willing that anyone should perish, why do most people die in their sins, unrepentant, without faith in Jesus Christ?

According to Evangelicals, God makes himself known to us through three things:

  • Creation
  • Conscience
  • Divine Revelation

These three things are problematic, to say the least. First, there’s nothing about creation that says to us that we need to repent and put our faith in Jesus. At best, one might conclude that there is a deity of some sort. But I have yet to have an Evangelical apologist connect the dots between the deistic God of creation and the God of the Protestant Christian Bible. Second, the same can be said of conscience. Evangelicals love to say that the law of God is written on our hearts. However, they can never explain, exactly what a “heart” is and what law is written on it. Let the ‘splaining begin. 🙂 Third, the Bible is God’s divine revelation to humanity. Yet, this very same book says that the natural man [those who are not Christians] cannot understand the Word of God. But Bruce, that’s why Christians are commanded to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth. That doesn’t change the fact that the Bible says it is impossible for dead sinners to understand it. We are deaf and blind, unable to see or hear the truth.

Let’s suppose God uses human means [instrumentality] to reach us so we will not perish. Could he choose a worse method to get his word across to sinners? There are thousands of sects, hundreds of thousands of clerics, and billions of Christians, each with their own peculiar definition and understanding of salvation. How could any uninitiated person ever understand which plan of salvation is right?

It seems God could have figured out a better way to convey his message of salvation to sinners. Instead, we have a convoluted mess to dig through, hoping that we find the right path to life eternal. Could it be that the mess before us is evidence that Christianity is of human origin; that there is no such thing as Christianity; that Christianity is an ever-evolving religion?

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.

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.

Five More Questions from an Evangelical Pastor

Bruce Gerencser 4 Comments
good question

An Evangelical pastor whom I have known for over forty years sent me some questions, the answers to which appear below. He previously asked me some questions which I answered in a post titled, Four Questions from an Evangelical Pastor. I found his questions sincere and honest, unlike many questions I receive from Evangelicals. Far too often, ulterior motivations lurk behind some questions, but I don’t sense that here. Hopefully, readers of this blog will find my answers helpful.

Are There Different Levels of Atheism

The short answer is no. Atheism is defined thusly: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. That’s it. Unlike Christianity — a hopelessly fragmented group — all atheists agree on one thing: atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. From that point, atheist beliefs go in all sorts of directions.

There’s also what is commonly called the Dawkins Scale: the spectrum of theistic probabilities. Famed biologist Dr. Richard Dawkins spoke of this seven-level spectrum in his popular book, The God Delusion:

  • Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: “I do not believe, I know.” De facto theist.
  • Very high probability but short of 100%. “I don’t know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”Leaning towards theism.
  • Higher than 50% but not very high. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.” Completely impartial.
  • Exactly 50%. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.” Leaning towards atheism.
  • Lower than 50% but not very low. “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”
  • De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. “I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
  • Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.”

Atheists debate amongst themselves Dawkins’ scale, and whether agnostics are, in fact, atheists. Agnostics believe that the existence of God, of the divine, or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. (Wikipedia) Another definition of agnosticism is as follows:

In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. In so far as one holds that our beliefs are rational only if they are sufficiently supported by human reason, the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational. (Richard Rowe, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)

I should mention in passing what I consider a distant third cousin of agnosticism: deism. Wikipedia describes enlightenment deism this way:

Enlightenment deism consisted of two philosophical assertions: (a) reason, along with features of the natural world, is a valid source of religious knowledge, and (b) revelation is not a valid source of religious knowledge. Different deist authors expanded on these two assertions to create what Leslie Stephen later termed the “constructive” and “critical” aspects of deism. “Constructive” assertions— assertions that deist writers felt were justified by appeals to reason and features of the natural world (or perhaps were intuitively obvious) — included:

  • God exists and created the universe.
  • God gave humans the ability to reason.

“Critical” assertions— assertions that followed from the denial of revelation as a valid source of religious knowledge— were much more numerous. They included:

  • Rejection of all books, including the Bible, that are claimed to contain divine revelation.
  • Rejection of the incomprehensible notion of the Trinity and other religious “mysteries”.
  • Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies, etc.

True Christianity

All deists rejected the Bible as a book of divine revelation. If you define “a Christian” as a person who accepts the stories in the Bible as true, divine revelations, the deists were not Christians. They rejected the miracle stories in the Bible and rejected the divinity of Jesus. Many, however, accepted Jesus as an actual historical person and held him in high regard as a moral teacher. (This position is known as Christian deism and was Thomas Jefferson’s motive for assembling his famous Jefferson Bible.) On the other hand, if you define “a true Christian” as a person who regards the historical human person Jesus as a great moral teacher and attempts to follow Jesus’ moral teachings, many deists considered themselves to be true Christians. Some deists were of the opinion that Jesus taught timeless moral truths, that those moral truths were the essence of Christianity, and since those truths are timeless, they predate Jesus’ teachings.

I have long believed that someone could look at the night sky and conclude that a deity of some sort created the universe; and that after creating the universe, this deity said, “There ya go, boys and girls, do with it what you will.” This God is unknowable and non-involved in our day-to-day lives. Believe in this deity or not, it exists. Some readers of this blog will call this deity divine energy or power. Of course, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that what we call “life” is, in actuality, a Westworld-like alien game simulation. Once I was freed from the authority and bondage of the Bible, I was free to think more freely about human existence. Who knows, maybe “reality” is an illusion.

Here is my take: I am an agnostic atheist. I cannot know for certain whether a deity of some sort exists. It is possible, though unlikely, that a deity of some sort might reveal itself to us someday. Possible, but improbable. For me, it is all about probabilities. (And the probability of the existence of any deity, let alone the Evangelical God, is minuscule.) On the Dawkins scale I am a six. The currently available evidence leads me to conclude that there is no God or gods. I am open to the possibility of the existence of one or more deities should evidence of their existence ever be provided, but, until then, I live my day-to-day life as an atheist. The only time thoughts about God enter my mind is when I am writing for this blog.

That said, let me be clear: I am not an anti-theist. Some atheists are vociferously and stridently anti-religion. I am not one of them. This has led to all sorts of criticisms and attacks from what I call the Fundamentalist wing of atheism. On occasion, I have had anti-theists tell me that I am not a True Atheist®. I laugh when such arguments are made, thinking, “Is this not the same argument Evangelicals use against me when they say I was never a “True Christian®?”

Do All Atheists Rely Strictly on Science and History for Answers?

Strictly or solely? No. Once we move from the base definition of atheism, atheists go in all sorts of directions philosophically, politically, socially, and even religiously. Yep, you will run into atheists who view themselves as “spiritual.”  I have been blogging for seventeen years. I have met all sorts of atheists. Over the years, several pro-Trump, anti-abortion, anti-homosexual atheists/agnostics have commented on this blog. I don’t understand their viewpoints and logic, but I don’t have to. Atheists are free to meander every which way from “atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” One can be an atheist and be irrational; and believe me, more than a few atheists are as dumb as rocks. Some atheists will comment on this blog and leave me scratching my head, saying “huh?” I rarely respond to such people. I let them say their piece, hoping my silence tells them all they need to know.

This would be a good point to mention the fact that most atheists are humanists. There’s nothing in atheism that gives a person moral or ethical grounding. Atheists look to humanism to find a framework by which to live their lives. The Humanist Manifesto remains the best summary of humanism:

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.

To answer my friend’s question, the Humanist Manifesto states:

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Do All Atheists Believe in Evolution?

Since I am not party to what all atheists believe, I can’t speak authoritatively on the matter. I can say that all of the atheists I know generally accept biological evolution as a scientific fact. While the word “belief” can be used in a variety of ways, in the context of evolution, atheists don’t believe in evolution. Belief, in this context, much like with religion, implies the use of feelings to come to a conclusion. Most atheists I know would say that their acceptance of evolution and other scientific conclusions rests on evidence, facts, and probabilities, not their feelings.

For most of my life, I was illiterate when it came to science. I believed that Genesis 1-3 told me all I needed to know about biology, cosmology, and the like. God created everything just as it is recorded in the inspired, inerrant, infallible Bible — end of discussion. I had a few creationist-oriented Evangelical apologetical books in my library. All these books did for me was affirm that I was “right.”  It wasn’t until I was disabused by Dr. Bart Ehrman and others of the notion that the Bible was some sort of perfect, supernatural book that I was able to question what it was exactly I believed about science.

One of the first books I read on this subject was biologist Dr. Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution is True. Another helpful book by Coyne is titled, Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible. For someone still in the Evangelical tent, books by physicist Dr. Karl Giberson might be helpful: Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution and The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions. Giberson’s support of evolutionary biology ultimately led to his dismissal from Eastern Nazarene College in 2011. Both Giberson and Dr. Francis Collins remain controversial figures within Evangelicalism, with more than a few Evangelicals saying that neither man is a Christian. I have my own doubts about whether Giberson or Collins are actually Evangelicals, but I am content to let people self-identify as they please.

Bruce, What Do You Believe About Our Existence?

Let me be clear, I am not a scientist. I know a hell of a lot more about science today than I did a few years ago, or when I was a Bible-believing preacher, but that doesn’t mean I can speak authoritatively on matters of science. I continue to educate myself, but at my age, I will likely run out of time before I master any specific scientific discipline. I hope that one or more of my grandchildren will do so and become what their grandfather could not. Many of my grandchildren are straight-A students, so I have high hopes that some of them will enter STEM programs post-high school.

I know where I am lacking knowledge-wise, and I do my best to not speak beyond that which I know. Want to talk about the Bible, Evangelicalism, theology, photography, Lionel O Gauge trains, or Windows-based computers? You will find that I generally know what I am talking about. However, when it comes to biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, archeology, and other scientific disciplines, I am, in every way, a novice. It is for this reason that I rely on experts to tell me what I need to know about science. Smart is the person who values expertise. I have certain scientists I trust to tell me the truth. “So, Bruce, does this mean you put “faith” in what they say?” Yes. Many atheists shy away from the word faith because of its religious connotations. However, I refuse to let religion hijack certain words. Faith means “confidence in a person or plan.”  There are scientists that I put great confidence in; when they speak, I listen. No, these men and women are not infallible, but they have given their lives to understanding this or that science discipline, so I trust what they say.

In Christianity, There is so Much Disagreement! How About Among Atheists?

There’s no doubt that Christianity is the most fragmented religion on the planet. I have long argued that if Christians were unified theologically that I might at least pause for a moment when considering the “God question.” However, there are thousands and thousands of Christian sects, each with its own version of the “faith once delivered to the saints.” This disunity says to me that Christianity is very much of human origin.

I wish I could say that atheism is monolithic, and everyone thinks and believes the same things. Sadly, atheism is quite divided too. Not so much on the core belief: “atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” Every atheist I know believes this statement to be an accurate definition of their view on God or gods. However, recent years have brought attempts by some to expand the definition of atheism to include social justice issues. This spawned a group called Atheism+. While there was a moment when I thought Atheism+ might be worthwhile, I quickly thought better of it after seeing who it was that was driving this attempt to redefine atheism. Socially and politically, I am as liberal as you come, but I saw Atheism+ as a purity test; an attempt to divide atheism between us and them. I concluded that the proponents of Atheism+ were using methodologies eerily similar to those I saw in Evangelicalism. No thanks. And let me be clear to Atheism+ flag-wavers, I have zero interest in re-ligating this issue with you in the comment section. Been there, done that, still bleeding.

Here’s one thing I know about most atheists. We can heartily disagree with one another and later enjoy each other’s company at a pub or restaurant. Back in my Evangelical days, every disagreement had eternal significance. Not so with most atheists. I don’t understand how an atheist can support Donald Trump or the present iteration of the Republican Party, but I am not going to let that affect our relationship (if we have one). I have booted several pro-Trump atheists off this site, not because of their politics, but because they were assholes. And as much as I hate to admit it, there are atheist assholes; people who don’t play well with others; people who think throwing feces at people on social media is “good conversation.”

I hope I have adequately answered my Evangelical friend’s questions.

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.

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.

Four Questions from an Evangelical Pastor

Bruce Gerencser 2 Comments
good question

Several years ago, an Evangelical pastor whom I have known for over forty years sent me some questions, the answers to which appear below. I found his questions sincere and honest, unlike many questions I receive from Evangelicals. Far too often, ulterior motivations lurk behind some questions, but I don’t sense that here. Hopefully, readers of this blog will find my answers helpful.

Bruce, do you ever feel like you’re wrong?

I am sixty-seven years old. I have been wrong more times than I can count. Over the past seventeen years, I have, on occasion, written about my wrongness, be it beliefs I held or decisions I made. As a pastor, my beliefs evolved over the course of the twenty-five years I spent in the ministry. One of the mistakes my critics make is picking a certain point in my life, and judging me from that moment in time. In doing so, they mistakenly or deliberately ignore what has come before and after. Yes, I entered the ministry as an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist. Yes, I at one time was a Jack Hyles supporter. However, my beliefs and associations continued to evolve. By the time I left the ministry in 2005, my beliefs were, compared to those I entered the ministry with, quite liberal. I entered the ministry with a narrow, judgmental view of people who called themselves Christians. I believed that my little corner of the Evangelical tent was reserved for True Christians®. Twenty-five years later, the front door of the church I pastored said, “The church where the only label that matters is Christian.”

The same could be said of my evolution politically. For many years, I was a diehard Christian nationalist who only voted Republican. I listened to Rush Limbaugh every day. In 2000, for the first time, I voted for a Democrat. By the time I moved to my current home, I was a liberal and a democratic socialist.

And finally, the same could be said of my social beliefs. I entered the ministry as an anti-abortion, patriarchal homophobe. I pastored a Baptist church in southeast Ohio for eleven years. I was well-known for my public pronouncements against abortion, women’s rights, and homosexuality. Yet, three decades later, my views have dramatically changed. I am now considered a defender of choice, women’s rights, and LGBTQ people.

People who have never changed their minds about anything — a common trait among religious Fundamentalists — look at my journey and see a man who is unstable. I, on the other hand, see a man who is willing to change his mind when confronted or challenged with facts and evidence that render his beliefs untenable.

Intellectual and personal growth only comes when we are willing to admit we are wrong. Closed-minded Fundamentalism stunts our thinking. One need only visit an IFB church to see what happens when people shut themselves off from the world and refuse to investigate and challenge their beliefs.

So, yes, I have been wrong, and I have no doubt that I will continue to be wrong. A well-lived life is one where there is ongoing progress and maturity. If I regret anything, it is that I waited way too long to give in to my doubts and questions; that I waited way too long to expose myself to people who think differently from me; that I waited too long to admit to the love of my life and my children that I was wrong.

Bruce, have you ever hesitated at all in deciding to become an atheist?

The short answer is yes, especially when I first deconverted. For a time, my mind was plagued with thoughts and fears about being wrong and God throwing me into Hell. I feared God punishing me for disobedience. I lay in bed more than a few nights wondering, “What if I am wrong?”

Over time, my doubts and fears faded into the fabric of my life. It’s been years now since I had such thoughts.

Perhaps this pastor is asking me a different question, wondering if I was hesitant about publicly identifying as an atheist. I have never been one to hesitate when I am confident that I am right. I am not the type of person who hides who and what he is, even if it would make life easier for me if I did so. In this regard, my wife and I are as different as day and night. Now, I don’t go through the streets screaming, “I am an ATHEIST,” but I don’t shy away from the label. I have often warned people who have contacted me about their own questions and doubts to NOT look at my life as a pattern to follow. (Please see Count the Cost Before You Say I am an Atheist) Each of us must choose our own path. I don’t judge or criticize atheists who choose to keep their unbelief private. Each to his own.

When I started blogging in 2007, one question I asked myself was whether I wanted to write anonymously. I chose to use my real name, but there have been moments when I wondered if I made the right choice. I have been brutally attacked and threatened by Christian zealots. The pain these people inflict leaves deep, lasting scars. This blog will soon celebrate its tenth anniversary. Anyone who has ridden Bruce’s crazy train for years knows that me making it to ten years is surprising. On at least three other occasions over the years, I have stopped blogging and deleted all of my posts due to savage attacks from Christian Fundamentalists (and, at one time, Fundamentalist atheists).

My life is pretty much an open book. I try to be open and honest, owning past mistakes and transgressions. Are there moments when I wish I had used a pseudonym instead of my real name? Sure, but it’s too late now to do so. The horse has left the proverbial barn. Even if I stopped blogging tomorrow, it would be impossible to erase my Internet footprint.

Bruce, was your transition difficult for you to accept?

I want to answer this question from two vantage points. First, was my transition from Christian to atheist hard for me to accept? Not at all. I have always believed truth matters. My life appears to my Evangelical critics to be one of a wanderer, a double-minded man (whom the Bible says is unstable in all his ways). My battle with depression is a sure sign to them that I am weak-kneed mentally. Perhaps, but I am the kind of person who is unafraid of changing his mind or being viewed as odd or different. In 2005, my late mother-in-law and I had an epic blow-up. I have written about this in the past. This blow-up, by the way, totally altered our relationship — for the better, from my perspective. Several days after our titanic battle, my mother-in-law called me. We talked about many things. During our conversation, Mom said, “Bruce, we always knew you were “different.” And she was right. I have always been the kind of person who follows the beat of my own drum, both as a Christian and an atheist. I do not doubt that my singular drum beating has caused me problems and affected the relationships I have with Polly, my children, and my extended family. I am who I am, and I have reached a place in life where I no longer apologize for being Bruce Gerencser.

Second, was my transition from a pastor to a commoner hard for me to accept? Absolutely. My entire life was wrapped up in Jesus and my calling to preach the gospel. The ministry was my life. I enjoyed being the hub around which everything turned. I enjoyed the work of the ministry, especially studying for and preaching sermons. To this day, I miss standing before people and saying, “Thus saith the Lord.” I miss the love and respect I received from congregants. I miss the place I had in the community due to my position as a minister.

Walking away from the ministry and Christianity meant abandoning my life’s calling; abandoning everything I held dear. Doing so meant, at the age of fifty, I had to answer countless questions that I hadn’t thought about in years. Fortunately, Polly walked hand in hand with me when I deconverted. I can only imagine how different our lives might have been had I become an atheist and Polly remained a Christian. I highly doubt our marriage would have survived.

Do I still miss certain aspects of the ministry? Sure. Fortunately, writing has become a ministry of sorts for me. This blog and its wonderful readers are my church. I digitally preach sermons, hoping that people find them encouraging and helpful. The traffic numbers suggest that a few people, anyway, love and appreciate the content of my post-Christian sermons. And all Loki’s people said, AMEN!

Bruce, do you wonder at all about any form of an afterlife?

I do not. I have come to accept that life is short, death is certain, and once we draw our last breath we cease to exist. There was a time, post-Jesus, when I hoped there was some sort of life beyond the grave. It’s hard to comprehend not existing. I have had numerous thoughts about non-existence; about going to bed at night and never waking up; of being alive one moment, and dead the next. I have thought about how life might be without Polly lying next to me; of not hearing the keys in the door and her voice ringing out, “I’m home.”

As much as I might want for there to be life after death, the facts tell me that no such thing exists. What evidence do we have for an afterlife? None, except the words in this or that religious text. I am no longer willing to build my life and future on what the Bible does and doesn’t say. This is a good spot for me to share the advice I give on the About page:

If you had one piece of advice to give me, what would it be?

You have one life. There is no heaven or hell. There is no afterlife. You have one life, it’s yours, and what you do with it is what matters most. Love and forgive those who matter to you and ignore those who add nothing to your life. Life is too short to spend time trying to make nice with those who will never make nice with you. Determine who are the people in your life that matter and give your time and devotion to them. Live each and every day to its fullest. You never know when death might come calling. Don’t waste time trying to be a jack of all trades, master of none. Find one or two things you like to do and do them well. Too many people spend way too much time doing things they will never be good at.

Here’s the conclusion of the matter. It’s your life and you best get to living it. Some day, sooner than you think, it will be over. Don’t let your dying days be ones of regret over what might have been.

I do my best to live by this statement. If, perchance, I learn after I die that there is an afterlife, fine by me. I have no worries about the existence of the Christian God and his Heaven/Hell. I am confident that the only Heaven and Hell is that which we make in this life. That said, is it possible that some sort of cosmic afterlife exists? Sure, but I am not counting on it. I am not going to waste this life in the hope that there is some sort of divine payoff 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 sixteen 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.

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.

Fundamentalist Preacher Upset That Unbelievers Ask Him for Evidence for His Claims

Bruce Gerencser 9 Comments
dr david tee's library
Dr. David Tee’s Massive Library

Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, continues to passive-aggressively respond to my posts, often refusing to mention my name or link to my writing. In a post titled Why Noah’s Ark Will Not be Found, Thiessen wrote:

People want evidence

This is what the modern world has turned into. Due to the rise in scientific influence and its demand for physical evidence, everyday people want to see evidence before they accept a premise as true.

The demand for evidence has overwhelmed the population elbowing the requirement for faith to the sidelines. It used to be that people believed the Bible without the need of any evidence.

That is not blind faith but acknowledging the fact that without faith one cannot please God. Also, it is an act of obedience as faith has always been the requirement for salvation and other biblical topics.

However, when science was placed as an authority the demand for real physical evidence rose and people stopped obeying God and wanted to see more and more physical evidence.

….

While we have so much evidence for Noah’s flood, it still takes faith to believe the biblical record. We do not know how Noah and his sons built such a large ship, how they weathered the storm, and much more. Everything about the flood has to be taken by faith.

Except for the lesson that God provided through this biblical event. Instead of searching for the ark, people should be learning what disobedience is going to cost them.

According to Thiessen, people used to “believe the Bible without the need of any evidence.” He provides no evidence or study for his claim, but I will accept his claim for the sake of argument. While there was likely a time when believers generally put their faith in the Bible and rarely, if ever, questioned its claims, thanks to the scientific method and the proliferation of evidence on the Internet that challenges faith claims, Christians are more likely to question and doubt what they hear from the pulpit. Thiessen, of course, will attribute this to Satan. After all, it was Lucifer (Actually a talking snake. The Bible never says the snake was the Devil.) who said to Adam and Eve, “Yea hath God said”? The answer to the snake’s question, of course, is “no.”

We teach our children not to trust people just because of what they say or their position of authority. Smart parents teach their children to be skeptical of all claims, including those uttered by authority figures. If a teacher, preacher, policeman, or other authority makes a claim, they should, at the very least, justify their claim. Every claim should stand on its own two feet. We should remain skeptical until hearing sufficient evidence to justify a claim.

However, when it comes to Evangelical Christianity, people are expected to check their brains at the door. Faith, not reason, is the standard of judgment. If a teaching or belief sounds irrational, just have faith. If a pastor’s preaching seems to run contrary to what we know to be true, just have faith. No matter how crazy a belief sounds, just have faith.

Thiessen says “We have so much evidence for Noah’s flood,” — a claim that is categorically false — but turns right around and says “It still takes faith to believe the biblical record.” Here’s the thing, if we have evidence, we don’t need faith. Faith is what people exercise when they don’t have a good reason to believe. Show me, I will believe, and then I won’t need faith.

Faith is never a good way to determine whether something is true. Faith allows people to believe all sorts of crazy things, including the supernatural claims of the Bible and Donald Trump’s claim that Haitian immigrants are eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio. Thiessen would have us believe everything in the Bible by faith, even without an evidentiary reason to do so. Only in religion do we ask people to place faith over reason, skepticism, and rational inquiry. Imagine a scientist presenting a paper without evidence for his claims. “Brethren, I ask you to take my word for it that eating three Snickers bars a day cures fibromyalgia.” Why, this scientist would be laughed out of the room. His fellow scientists would demand empirical evidence for his claims, and even then, they would likely retest his claims before accepting them as true.

Thiessen wants us to just close our eyes and wish upon a star. Any and every absurd claim can be believed if people will just have faith. But that’s not how the world works in 2024. It’s not 1100 CE anymore. We now live in a scientific era where people are expected to provide evidence for their claims — including preachers, evangelists, missionaries, and Sunday school teachers. If credible evidence cannot be provided, moderns will not believe.

Thiessen longs for a day when people just took his word for it. I am sure it grates on him that he is no longer viewed as an authority on the Bible; and that people rightly challenge his bald assertions. If Thiessen wants us to believe, all he has to do is provide evidence for his claims. Not quote Bible verses or appeal to hermeneutic sleight of hand, but actual evidence. I remain ready and willing to believe. All it would take to convert me is to provide sufficient evidence for the existence of the Christian deity and the central claims of Christianity. So far, this evidence has not been forthcoming.

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.

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.

Black Collar Crime: IFB Pastor David Baker Kills Himself Instead of Facing Sexual Battery Charge

Bruce Gerencser 14 Comments
pastor david baker

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.

David Baker, pastor of Family Baptist Church in Columbia, Tennessee, allegedly killed himself after facing charges that he sexually assaulted a minor.

Yesterday, The Daily Herald reported:

A Columbia pastor was charged with aggravated sexual battery Tuesday and booked at the Maury County Jail.

David Mark Baker Sr., lead pastor of Family Baptist Church in Columbia, served as a candidate for Maury County mayor in the 2022 election, entering the race after now U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles dropped out to run for the 5th District Congressional seat.

Baker, a Santa Fe native, started Independent Baptist Online Bible College, a ministry of Family Baptist Church, has led a life coaching business, and is an author of several books.

He also runs a ministry Fallen in Grace, with Indiana pastor David Hyles, who has faced much controversy.

Baker previously served as chaplain of the Maury County Jail for 28 years.

Bond set at $200,000.

Baker’s court date is 9:30 a.m. on Oct. 9 in Maury County.

Today, The Daily Herald reported:

Just a day after Columbia Pastor David Baker, Sr. was charged with aggravated sexual battery by Maury County Sheriff’s Office, he has died of apparent suicide, according to Columbia Police Chief Jeremy Alsup.

Baker served as lead pastor of Family Baptist Church in Columbia and ran as a candidate for Maury County mayor in the 2022 election.

According to Alsup, Baker “walked into the ER at Maury Regional Medical Center, went straight to the bathroom and was soon found deceased in the bathroom.”

Alsup shared that video captured Baker walking into the hospital emergency room.

Bond was posted at $200,000 Tuesday, and a court date was previously set for Oct. 9.

The charge against Baker involves a minor, Sheriff Bucky Rowland confirmed Wednesday.

During the 2022 election, Baker filed a defamation lawsuit in Maury County court against then-opponent Maury County Mayor Sheila Butt, which was later dropped. He was also criticized during the election by a former member of Lighthouse Baptist Church, (which filed bankruptcy in 2017) regarding his handling of the member’s sexual assault by a fellow church member.

Baker, a Santa Fe native, started Independent Baptist Online Bible College, a ministry of Family Baptist Church, led a life coaching business and penned several books.

He also ran a ministry Fallen in Grace, with Indiana pastor David Hyles. Hyles has faced much controversy, including allegations of rape, according to multiple media reports by the Fort-Worth Star Telegram, though he was not charged.

Baker previously served as chaplain of the Maury County Jail for 28 years.

Fox-17 reports:

Authorities say the family member he molested was under the age of 12.

There was nothing Godly about him. He was, he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” said Aimee Spires.

Spires told FOX 17 News she went to Baker’s church when he was a preacher at Lighthouse Baptist Church. He was a pastor at Family Baptist church when he was arrested.

“I was angry because all the victims that there is, there’s no telling how many victims, how many girl victims that are out there that he may have done this to,” said Spires.

Another former church member and activist Tiffany Boyd is upset at what he is accused of doing considering what he preached.

“A hypocrite. There are a lot of words, but many of those, I can’t say on camera, it’s infuriating. I mean, it really, it’s infuriating.” she said.

The Columbia Police Department confirmed Baker shot himself today at Maury Regional Medical Center.

The hospital’s spokesperson tells FOX 17 News, a man went into their restroom and shot himself twice in the chest. They said they tried to save him and placed the hospital on lockdown.

As noted in the news articles, Baker ran a ministry for “fallen” ministers with disgraced miscreant David Hyles — the son of the late Jack Hyles. Called Fallen in Grace, this ministry helped restore preachers to the ministry after they fell (or headlong ran) into sin –especially sexual sins, including rape, adultery, and molesting children. Hyles has a long history of sexual misconduct, but has, so far, evaded accountability for his behavior. Birds of a feather flock together, and that is certainly the case of Hyles, Baker, and other fallen Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) preachers. Both Hyles and Baker provided a smokescreen for other “fallen” preachers, helping them return to the ministry. Dr. David Tee (who blogs at TheologyArcheology: A Site for the Glory of God), a notorious defender of preachers who commit sex crimes, would be proud of these men and the “service” they provide to God’s people.

While I am saddened by Baker’s alleged suicide — after all, he had a wife and eleven children — I hope that his death puts an end to Fallen in Grace and its pernicious enabling of sexual predators and other offenders. Interestingly, less than a day after Baker was arrested, he and the Fallen in Grace ministry have been scrubbed from Family Baptist Church’s website. Nothing to see here! David Baker? David Baker who? David Hyles? Never heard of him. Fallen in Grace? Not ministry we are familiar with. In the IFB church movement, the modus operandi is to deny, cover-up, and move on. There are souls to save, sermons to preach, and offerings to collect.

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.

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.

How Evangelical Church Discipline is Used to Abuse and Harm Congregants

Bruce Gerencser 8 Comments
john macarthur

In the news of late are stories about Grace Community Church in Sun City, California, its pastor John MacArthur, and how they handle church discipline. Most American churches don’t practice church discipline. Church members don’t know anything about the subject, having never seen it put into practice. I pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years. I pastored scores of people, yet only exercised church discipline on one man — an act I came to later regret. I was, however, co-pastor of a church that routinely used discipline to keep members in line. More on that later.

Many of the Evangelical churches that regularly discipline are doctrinally Calvinistic. Grace Community is Calvinistic. It regularly and routinely disciplines “erring” congregants. Recent news reports speak of women being disciplined for leaving or divorcing their husbands, contrary to the advice and admonition of Grace Community’s elders. One woman even left the church and asked for her membership to be withdrawn. Instead, the church disciplined her. She has filed a lawsuit against Grace Community and MacArthur for disparaging her publicly from the pulpit.

Church discipline is a tool used by churches and pastors to control congregant behavior. There are prooftexts they used to justify this practice, which I shall ignore for the purpose of this post. Most Evangelical churches have loose, at times non-existent, membership requirements. As long as you are not an evil Sodomite or living in open sin, churches will welcome you into their memberships upon profession of faith or transfer of membership from another like-minded church. While baptism is often required before membership, churches increasingly ignore this requirement, which is odd since the New Testament clearly teaches that baptism is a prerequisite to membership (if not salvation itself). Once a member, congregants are encouraged to attend church, tithe and give offerings, and serve in some meaningful capacity. Churches that practice discipline, however, demand congregants not only attend church unless providentially hindered, tithe and give offerings, serve in the church, and obey the teachings of the pastor.

Churches use church discipline as a means of control. Fundamentally, churches are social clubs with membership requirements. If you want to join the club, you must agree to the club’s membership rules, and if you don’t you will be booted out of the club. In 1995, I was excommunicated from Community Baptist Church in Elmendorf, Texas. Please see I am a Publican and a Heathen — Part One for more on my time at Community Baptist. I tried to leave the church quietly, but I was told that since I had to have their permission to join the church, I had to have their permission to leave. I ignored their edict, resigned, and moved back to Ohio. The very night we were leaving, the church held a meeting to deal with “the Bruce Gerencser problem.” My fellow co-pastor led the church to excommunicate me, and to this day I am considered a publican and a heathen.

Much like Grace Community in Sun City, Community Baptist used church discipline as a bludgeon to beat congregants into submission. I saw church members disciplined for all sorts of trivial reasons, including not regularly attending church. Even people who made it clear they were leaving the church and moving on were disciplined for not asking the church to leave. Of course, this threat of public shaming is used as a tool to force compliance.

I pastored Somerset Baptist Church in Mt. Perry, Ohio. It was a church I started, and in the late 1980s, I led the congregation to embrace Evangelical Calvinism. Every congregant agreed with this drastic theological change, though I suspect some of them acquiesced out of fear. Months before I left this church to become the co-pastor at Community Baptist, I had my first opportunity to put church discipline into practice.

The man in question, now dead (I preached his funeral a few years ago), I’ll call Robert. Robert was a committed follower of Jesus, attending church every time the doors were open. Anything I needed done, Robert would do. He was rough around the edges, having grown up in a dysfunctional home. I still remember the first time Robert came to church. He was dressed in ratty, dirty clothes, and he was wearing a Zig-Zag hat. Robert and his family lived less than a mile down the hill from our home. We started out picking up their four children on Sundays and bringing them to church. Eventually, I convinced Robert and his wife to attend, and a few weeks later I led them to faith in Christ.

I genuinely loved and appreciated Robert, even though I found his behavior, at times, troubling. I viewed him as a “project.” Robert had been a member for ten years when he was kicked out of the church. His crime was serious — unrepentant adultery. I tried to get Robert to reconcile with his wife, but I failed. Using Matthew 18 as the standard, I first talked to Robert one-on-one, and then I brought a witness, a fellow pastor, to talk to him. Our appeals were rebuffed and ignored. Finally, I took the matter before the church, asking them to excommunicate Robert for grievous unrepentant sin. The church unanimously voted to kick Robert out of the congregation. He was no longer permitted to attend our services unless he publicly repented. His wife and four children remained in the church, and the children attended our Christian school.

A few months later, I resigned from the church. Several congregants came to me and said that Robert wanted to come to my last service at Somerset Baptist. I refused, saying that Robert had to publicly repent before he returned to church. Even his wife, whom he later reconciled with, pleaded with me to let him come back to church. I, however, stuck to my guns, thinking I was standing true to the teachings of Christ. In hindsight, I regret not letting Robert attend the service. I was nothing more than a Bible bully. Yes, the Scriptures were on my side, but I allowed my interpretation of the Bible to overrule my humanity. Yes, adultery was a sin, but he was hardly the only man or woman in the church to have committed fornication or adultery. Robert was just stupid enough to get caught.

After my experience at Community Baptist, I came to see and understand that this Calvinistic form of church discipline was a bad idea; that it was used to control congregants, eliciting fear and submission. I would later take a closer look at church discipline and conclude that it was cultic practice, a way for preachers to demand conformity and obedience.

My advice to Evangelicals seeking a new church to attend is to avoid like the plague churches that practice church discipline — Bible be damned. Congregants should be able to quietly leave without disciplinary action. It is common for church members to move on to other churches for a variety of reasons — some justified, some not. Regardless, why not let them quietly leave without publicly shaming and rebuking them from the pulpit? It seems to me that it is never wise to burn bridges. I had more than a few members leave for a variety of reasons and later return to the church — often years later. Had the church disciplined them, it is unlikely they would have returned.

How did your church handle church discipline? Did they excommunicate erring members? Did they publicly shame them? Did your pastor ever preach on church discipline? Please leave your erudite thoughts in the comment section.

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.

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.

I’m a Prophet, Preacher, or Evangelist Because I Say I Am

Bruce Gerencser 3 Comments
calling of god

Have you ever wondered how, exactly, an Evangelical man (or, in some instances, woman) becomes a prophet, preacher, or evangelist? What is the process one goes through to become a spokesperson for the Evangelical God? In this post, I will detail how someone becomes an out-front spokesperson for the one true God.

Salvation Experience

First, a candidate for the ministry must be a saved/born again/bought-by-the-blood child of God. A prospective prophet, preacher, or evangelist must have a clear, definitive testimony of salvation. An added bonus is a life before Jesus that includes drug use, drunkenness, sexual deviance, Satan worship, or atheism. The more fantastical the testimony, the more likely it is that congregants will think a person is a bona fide man of God.

Baptism

Second, a candidate for the ministry must be baptized. This is the first step new believers take in their new life with Christ. Some Evangelical sects also believe that ministerial candidates must give evidence that they have been baptized with the Holy Ghost. Such Spirit baptism is often evidenced by speaking in tongues.

Calling

Third, a candidate for the ministry must know that God is calling him to be a prophet, preacher, or evangelist. How does one know that God is calling him? Well, he just knows. Calling is a feeling, a psychological/emotional impression. I was saved and baptized at the age of fifteen. Several weeks after my conversion, I felt led by the Holy Spirit to go forward and confess to the church that I believed God was calling me to preach. The church was thrilled over my confession of ministerial ambition. Two weeks later, I preached my first sermon. For the next thirty-five years, I never one time questioned my calling. I just knew beyond all shadow of a doubt that God had called me into the ministry. I was as sure of this calling as I was the fact that Jesus had saved me from my sins.

Educational Requirements

While some Evangelical sects have educational requirements for ministerial candidates, other sects, along with Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB), Charismatic, Pentecostal, Southern Baptist, and non-denominational churches have no requirements other than salvation, baptism, and calling. Countless Evangelical churches are pastored by men and women who don’t have a lick of post-high school education. The same can be said for evangelists. Years ago, I attended a revival meeting at a holiness church near the Baptist congregation I was pastoring. The evangelist, an older man, would have his wife read the Bible for him. I had seen this tag-team approach before, but this evangelist was having his wife read because he, himself, could not read. Yet, I am sure if I asked if he was a God-called preacher of the gospel, he would have said with great assurance and certainty, yes.

Within the broad, diverse Evangelical tent, it is common to find prophets, preachers, or evangelists with little or no relevant ministerial training. God saved and called them, end of discussion. And as long as they believe God called them, that is all that matters. Sure, scores of Evangelical ministers have college educations. However, a closer examination of their educational backgrounds often reveals that they attended unaccredited Bible colleges or institutes (local church-based schools). These institutions often provide perfunctory, superficial educations that are little more than Sunday school classes. Even for men who attend accredited Evangelical colleges and universities, the academic level of their instruction is often woefully lacking. Readers might be surprised to know that the overwhelming majority of Evangelical ministerial graduates lack thorough, comprehensive training in the teachings of the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible. All too often, ministerial students take survey classes that are little more than shallow commentaries on the Bible. Worse yet, most Evangelical pastors are not fluent in the original languages the Bible was written in — Hebrew and Greek.

Ordination

Many Evangelical sects and churches use ordination as a gateway of sorts for men and women who say God has called them to be prophets, preachers, or evangelists. Ordination is a stamp of approval put on the candidate by the denomination or church. In the IFB church movement, churches often call for a council of like-minded pastors to come together to examine the prospective ministerial candidate. Often, these examinations are little more than rubber-stamp approvals of the candidates. Who are they to say to “no” to what God has said “yes”? How does the council know God has called a person into the ministry? Do they get some sort of impression or feeling that affirms to them that the candidate is a God-called prophet, preacher, or evangelist? Nope. they just take the candidate’s word for it.

External Evidence

Certainly, sects, churches, and ordination councils look for external evidence of calling. Is the prospective prophet, preacher, or evangelist active in the church? Does he or she have a passion for soulwinning? Does he have the requisite skills necessary to preach and teach? You would think this last point would be essential, but having listened to scads of sermons, I can tell you that a lot of pastors and evangelists are terrible communicators. In the early 1980s, I helped my father-in-law start an IFB church in Buckeye Lake, Ohio. Dad had a real passion for evangelism, but his sermons, to put it bluntly, were atrocious. Dad graduated from Midwestern Baptist College in 1976. Somehow, he got through college without ever learning to construct an outline and deliver a coherent sermon. Outlining always came easy for me, so I sat down with Dad one day and tried to teach him how to make a sermon outline. Sadly, my instructions did not stick. How he got through Midwestern without learning the basics of sermon construction is impossible to comprehend. I suspect that to his professors and pastors, Dad saying God called him into the ministry was all that mattered. Hey, who are we to say this guy isn’t fit to be a preacher? I left the church in Buckeye Lake in 1983, moving a half-hour south to Somerset to start a new IFB church. Dad closed the church six years later and never pastored another church again. He continued to preach, but most often his congregations were found in nursing homes and jails — places where sermon quality didn’t matter.

Lone Rangers

What happens if a man’s church or sect doubts his calling? Does that mean the prospective candidate can’t be a prophet, preacher, or evangelist? Silly boy, of course not. You see, the “calling” card trumps all others. If a man says God has called him, how dare any sect or church say “no” to what God has said “yes”. This is especially true with churches that are non-affiliated or independent. If a man finds disapproval in these settings, he’s free to move on to another church willing to acknowledge his calling. And if he can’t find a church that will put their stamp of approval on his life, there’s nothing to keep him from starting his own church. Thanks to the First Amendment and non-existent tax laws governing churches, little stands in the way of a man starting a new church. Over twenty-five years in the ministry, I started four churches and pastored three churches that were first-generation church plants. Nothing ecclesiastically or governmentally stood in my way. I was a God-called preacher of the gospel, and that’s all that mattered. With Bruce and God, all things were possible.

Are you a former Evangelical prophet, preacher, or evangelist? Did you consider yourself called by God into the ministry? Were you ordained? Did you have a Bible college education? How in-depth was your training? Please share your experiences in the comment section.

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.

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.

Dr. David Tee Responds to My Post About Jesus Abandoning Hospitalized Woman

Bruce Gerencser 8 Comments
woman-lying-on-hospital-crying-praying-to-jesus-with-raised

Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, took issue with a recent post of mine:

When it comes to spiritual issues and Christians, unbelievers develop some weird and absurd views. They do not grasp the subtleties involved with God’s answer to prayer. Take for example this post Jesus Abandons Christian Woman in Hospital, Leaving Her to Suffer Horrific Pain [by Bruce Gerencser]:

Over and over and over again, for two hours, an elderly Charismatic Christian woman in a hospital bed near mine, lay on her bed with hands extended to the ceiling, pleading for Jesus/God to come to her and make his presence known….

Fortunately, after two hours of crying out to Jesus, he finally showed up! Just kidding. What showed up was a nurse with a syringe filled with high-powered narcotics. Soon, the woman fell asleep, ending her pleas to God. When she awoke, family and medical staff alike comforted her so she would no longer hysterically cry out for an imaginary pain-alleviating deity. Her suffering was alleviated, not by God, but by medically trained and compassionate human beings.

It is obvious that unbelievers will not see God or Jesus behind the kind act of the nurse. They only look on the surface of events and do not look for the real action taking place behind that surface view.

Unbelievers fail to realize that God uses people thus a human would be sent with the right medication to alleviate the woman’s pain. Given the fact that deaths due to medical malp[practice [sic] are abundant, the woman receiving the right dosage of the right medicine is an act of God answering her prayers.

Why would it take so long? Well, real life does get in the way of God answering prayers. One reason is that the nurses resisted God’s leading and disobeyed. Another is that they came when they were free as they had other patients to minister aid to and other practical and real reasons.

It is not that God abandoned this woman but that he answers in his time. Unfortunately, according to the author of that post, the woman’s faith was being undermined by family and medical staff. That is another reason God’s aid was delayed.

The post goes on to denigrate God and the Bible but that is also par for the ocurse [sic] as unbelievers never see God in any result of prayer. Not because they do not believe but because they do not look for God’s behind the scenes action.

According to Thiessen, I failed to see “God or Jesus behind the kind act of the nurse.” How could I, or anyone else, for that matter, see God or Jesus behind the nurse caring for this woman? Thiessen makes a claim for which he provides no evidence. Thiessen claims that I just took a “surface” view of the situation. How could I have done otherwise? I have no tool available to me that allows me to detect Jesus/God, so I make judgments based on what I see and hear. If God is the sovereign of the universe and hears every believer’s prayer, why did it take him two hours to show up? Jesus could have immediately revealed himself to her or alleviated her pain, but he didn’t. Instead, she lay on her bed writhing in pain, pleading for Jesus to make an appearance and alleviate her suffering.

Thiessen asserts, without evidence, that the woman finally receiving the right dose of narcotics was “an act of God answering her prayers.” How could he possibly know this? It is far more likely the charge nurse had to get in contact with the doctor before giving her pain meds and this took some time to accomplish or she had already received pain meds and it was too soon for more.

Thiessen suggests that God’s tardiness (not explaining how God could be tardy or absent when he is ever present) was due to “the nurses resisted God’s leading and disobeyed” or “they had other patients to minister aid to and other practical and real reasons.” Again, Thiessen provides no evidence for his claims. He is just making shit up as he goes, trying to make God look good. I was two beds away from this woman in a ward when the events detailed in my post happened. She had nursing staff in her room the whole time. My nurse, an RN, spent thirty minutes with the woman, trying to comfort and settle her down. She had plenty of human help, but supernatural deliverance was nowhere to be found.

Thiessen claims that the woman’s family and her nurses undermined her faith, and that’s why pain relief was delayed. I have no idea how he came to this conclusion. Besides, what kind of God withholds pain relief from one of his followers because of what others did? Why should she be punished for what others do (not that they did what Thiessen alleges)?

Thiessen concludes his post by saying “Unbelievers never see God in any result of prayer. Not because they do not believe but because they do not look for God’s behind-the-scenes action.” Saying God answered a prayer is a claim. If you want me to believe a supernatural claim then you must provide sufficient evidence for your claim. Thiessen, of course, doesn’t do this. As a Fundamentalist presuppositionalist, he believes that his claims are self-evident; and that unbelievers are deliberately deaf and blind to what God is doing in the world. Sure . . . but if Thiessen wants me to accept his claims, he going to have to do more than quote Bible verses, share personal experiences, or make bald assertions for which he provides no evidence. I am not going to take his word for it, and neither should anyone else.

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.

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.

The One Thing the Evangelical God Could Do to Convince Me He Is Real

Bruce Gerencser 12 Comments
amputated leg

I am often asked what evidence it would take to convince me of the existence of the Evangelical God; the God of the Bible. Some atheists refuse to answer this question, saying “God knows what evidence would convince me of his existence, so when he provides it, I’ll know it.” Fair enough. The Evangelical God is allegedly omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If these claims are true, God knows exactly what will convince unbelievers of his existence. Yet, God is silent, outside of helping Granny find her car keys or Grandpa his hearing aids.

So what could the Evangelical God do to convince the Evangelical-preacher-turned-atheist Bruce Gerencser that he exists? One thing. One thing that God, in all of human history, has never done. One thing that would clearly, and without ambiguity, show me that he is real. What is that one thing, you ask? I would like to see God miraculously regrow an amputated arm or leg. Do this, God, and I will admit that you are real. I may not worship you, but I will believe you exist. Regrowing an amputated limb is not enough to absolve God of his murderous, genocidal acts recorded in the Bible. I can admit this God exists without bending a knee to him.

Okay, God, the ball is in your court.

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen 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.

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.