A week ago, Detriot Lions kicker Jake Bates kicked a game-winning field goal over the Houston Texans. Afterward, Bates said:
That’s what I think I’m here to do is not make or miss or be a good kicker or a bad kicker but spread the love of Jesus. So … hopefully, I’m able to do that on the stage I’m given.
Bates diminishes his teammates, coaches, trainers, and everyone else in his life when he gives Jesus all the credit for kicking the field goal.
While I got the moment [and] while everybody was cheering and so happy, I want to acknowledge Jesus Christ. I tell you what, man, I cannot take credit for a gift like this. I really owe it all to him.
And I know that there’s millions of people around the world watching right now, and I just want to let you guys know that Jesus loves you so much. That’s all I’ll say about that.
As with Bates, Jones diminishes his win by giving all the praise, honor, and glory to Jesus. Not his manager, trainers, sparring partners, or anyone else, for that matter. Jesus won the match for him.
Both athletes diminish their own hard work, training, and skills. This sentiment is common among Evangelicals. Repeatedly told that without Jesus they can do nothing, Christian athletes give Jesus alone praise for what they, through years of discipline and training, accomplished. Wins are attributed to Jesus. Losses? Well, Jesus never gets credit for them.
Jesus, whom Christians believe is the virgin-born, miracle-working, executed, and resurrected-from-the- dead-son of God, is owed all the credit for what happens on the field, court, or ring. When asked why they give Jesus praise for everything, Evangelical athletes quote Bible prooftexts to justify their self-depreciation and humility.
No evidence is provided for their claims. Having spent their lives in Evangelicalism, such praise-shifting is expected. Mere humans are warned to avoid taking for themselves praise that only belongs to God. Never mind the countless hours spent training or the parents/coaches/trainers/teammates who devoted themselves to the success of the athlete. All the praise, honor, and successful sporting events belong to God. Choosing to praise yourself or others for your success is viewed as prideful.
I am an avid sports fan. I have yet to see Jesus on the field, court, or ring. These athletes sincerely believe, as the Bible states, “Without me ye can do nothing” or “With God all things are possible.” However, it is clear that game/match/bout winners and those who taught, trained, and coached them are mere facilitators for Jesus.
Such thinking leads to false humility. Christian athletes can be humble while at the same time giving credit to whom credit is due. Bates thinks being a good kicker plays no part in his success. Every successful field goal is an opportunity to put in a good word for Jesus. Same goes for Jones. Every landed punch, kick, and takedown is due to Jesus working in and through him.
I am not opposed to athletes being Christians or putting in a brief word for Jesus. However, I find the sermonettes used to give Jesus all the glory offensive and a denial of what happened during the game/match. Professional athletes typically have superior physical skills. If anyone deserves credit for their physical skills, it is their biological parents; people who, through DNA, passed on physical attributes most humans do not have. Coaches and trainers took that natural talent and shaped the player into a successful high school/college/professional athlete.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and 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.
Female humans typically have two mammary glands, also called breasts. These glands provide milk for females to nurse their young. However, in many Christian countries, especially the United States, female breasts are sexualized. Evangelicals, in particular, have irrational beliefs about female breasts. Male humans also have underdeveloped mammary glands, but I can’t ever remember hearing a sermon condemning men for exposing their breasts. No, the focus is on female breasts, especially if the preacher sees a comely woman walk into church, distracting him from preaching the Bible. Nothing like boobs to distract a preacher from the Word of God, right? 🙂
We live in a culture where female mammary glands are sexualized; that breasts are treated as genitals are. Thus, Evangelical preachers demand women cover up their breasts lest their very existence distract men from God or cause them to lust. As readers will see in a moment, this includes women exposing their milk-producing mammary glands as they feed their infants. Women are expected to totally cover their breasts in public or church lest hapless Evangelical men lust.
Take Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen. Yesterday, Thiessen wrote a post titled Illogical Arguments. Fearful of seeing boobs in public, Thiessen demands nursing women cover their breasts and not nurse their babies where anyone can see them.
Thiessen writes (all spelling, grammar, and punctuation in the original):
When it comes to breastfeeding people have different opinions. Many unbelievers [including many Evangelical women] feel that women should be allowed to breastfeed in public. Most of their arguments are illogical and very limited. Take for example this point some unbelievers raise:
Firstly, breast-feeding is perfectly natural. It is one of the most natural things in the world. Numerous species across millions of years have breast-fed their young.
This is illogical because first, humans are not animals [humans are animals, as any non-Evangelical biology book will tell you]. The latter do not have a moral code to follow nor even know what morality is. Second, animals tend to have sex in public. If one wants to be consistent and not a hypocrite, then one must call public sex acts natural and should be allowed for public viewing without stigmentation [??].
Third, there are rules of decency and morality that humans must follow [really? where can these rules be found]. Animals do not have those rules or know what they mean. Why lower humans to the level of animals when we are clearly superior to them and have a different set of rules to operate by?
There are very good reasons why public breastfeeding is not allowed. Morality and decency are just two of them. [So, public breastfeeding is immoral? Which Bible command says that] Another reason is that public breastfeeding is very selfish. it is all about the women going me me me. [No, it is all about the baby, who, when hungry, says me, me, me.]
….
That is selfish and does not take into consideration anyone else’s views or feelings about public breastfeeding. [Yes, Derrick, your views or feelings do not matter.] Doing this natural act privately does not make a woman second-class or inferior, it simply shows that the mother considers other people. It is very awkward walking in a public place and coming across a woman breastfeeding. [Maybe for you, Derrick, but this is not a universal feeling.]
Women should not be putting others into that state. Then private breastfeeding protects women from being further objectified sexually as well as stopping women from tempting men and women to sin. [If you, Derrick, are objectifying breastfeeding women, that is your problem, and not theirs. If you, Derrick, get a boner when seeing a partially exposed breast in public, that’s your problem. Grow up.]
….
Morals and decency are not submissive to parental experience. parental experience is submissive to morality and decency. Actually, babies do operate by a schedule and parents have known about this for millenniums. [Says a man who knows nothing about raising children.]
It is just that the modern world has interrupted that schedule due to the busyness of adult lives. It is also interrupted by the false idea that women are made second-class because they cannot do their normal schedules until their children are old enough to not breastfeed.
Then opposition to this act is not about men’s rights. It is true that wives must obey their husbands [says who?] and no man in his right mind wants his wife exposing herself and putting herself in danger by whipping out her breast. [I must not be in my right mind; not that Polly ever “whipped out her breast” when feeding one of our children.] The husband and father do have the right to say where a woman can breastfeed. [No, they do not — ever.]
The woman has given her body to the man she has had sex with. It is not hers anymore, she does not have rule over her body. [Yes, she does. It is her body, not her husbands. You seem to not understand bodily autonomy. I am sure female commenters will straighten you out on this issue.] It is their [husbands] business what a woman does. What she does reflects on him and can either undermine or enhance his reputation as well as his qualifications. [OMG! Polly undermind my reputation by feeding Jason, Nathan, Jaime, Bethany, Laura, and Josiah in public.]
When it comes to motherly duty, there has never been a rule or guideline in those duties that women can publically breastfeed their children. It is not part of their duty. It is their duty to breastfeed but not in a position that makes them a public spectacle or embarrasses their husbands and family.
….
Then feeding a child is not the only priority of a mother. [When the child is hungry, it is.] Her top priority is her husband [no, the child comes first.] and she must be submissive to him, even in breastfeeding. [Good luck with that, Sherlock.] This illogical argument is nothing but an attempt to sin and defy God. [Really? Breastfeeding in public a sin? Chapter and verse, please. Women defy God when they breastfeed in public? Again, chapter and verse.]
Unbelievers are not content with pleasing God and want to do things their own way.
….
There is nothing wrong with scheduling one’s day so that the mother can be in a private location to breastfeed her child. Rescheduling does not undermine her priorities but gives her peace of mind. She is protecting her husband, her child, and herself.
Exposing oneself in public does open the door to more crimes against women. [Only from men like you, Derrick, who are lurking in the shadows.] One reason for saying that is that the woman is not sure who is watching her or who gets a fixation on her. Instead of making women more vulnerable to sexual crimes, we need to protect them better.
One way to do that is to teach women how to schedule their breastfeeding time so that they are not in danger of being victims of crimes. Why should society change because some minute minorities want public breastfeeding? [Do you seriously think that public breastfeeding is a “minute minority position? You need to get out more or travel to other countries where people don’t sexualize female mammary glands.]
No, it is time to put the minute minorities in place [Good luck with that. I dare you to tell a woman breastfeeding in public to put her breast away. I guarantee you that you will get more than your bargained for.] and keep them from encouraging and helping people to sin against God and others. [Derrick, if a woman breastfeeding in public causes you to sin, you are a pervert.] It is very unintelligent to say that non-parents should mind their own business on this topic. [Yes, mind your own fucking business.]
Non-parents are included and this is part of their business because public breastfeeding affects them as well. [How does it affect you, Derrick, other than you can’t keep your mind out of the gutter?] When you make it public, it is not a private matter anymore. Plus, the non-parent’s are under the same rules of decency and morality and those are impacted by making this natural act public.
As you can see, Thiessen sexualizes female mammary glands. He even goes so far as to say that women who breastfeed in public are vulnerable to sexual assault. When and where a lactating woman feeds her children is up to her husband, not her. As I have mentioned before, the female body is hyper-sexualized in Evangelical churches. Men are weak, pathetic horn dogs who can’t control themselves if they dare see a woman’s cleavage or, God forbid, her milk-filled mammary gland.
My partner, Polly, gave birth to six children. She breastfed all of them on demand until they were weaned. Polly sat on the front pew of the church, nursing her child while listening to her husband preach. She was discreet, but everyone knew what she was doing. Not one church member ever complained about her doing so or suggested Polly was being immoral. As a pastor, I saw countless women nurse their babies while I was preaching. I found it to be quite normal, never a distraction. Well, one time a woman nursing her child was a distraction. As I was preaching, a church member sitting three rows from the front, exposed her breast so her five-year-old daughter could stand there and nurse. I found her doing so quite amusing.
Breastfeeding in public is a normal, healthy human behavior. There is nothing sexual about the practice. Evangelical men such as Thiessen who sexualize the practice are the problem, not women. If Thiessen can’t keep his mind on Jesus while a woman is nursing her baby nearby, I suggest he immediately go to the nursery to protect his infantile self from lust.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and 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.
Most Christians are familiar with the Old Testament story about David, King of Israel, and Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. 2 Samuel 11:1-5 says:
And it came to pass, after the year was expired, at the time when kings go forth to battle, that David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the children of Ammon, and besieged Rabbah. But David tarried still at Jerusalem. And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house. And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child.
David decided one evening to take a rooftop stroll. As he surveyed the city of Jerusalem, he noticed a beautiful woman taking a bath. Horniness aroused, David sent messengers to Bathsheba’s home and had her brought to him so he could have sex with her.
David’s dalliance with Bathsheba was not a one-time thing. David’s lust for Bathsheba was such that he was willing to do anything — including murder — to “have” her. David knew Bathsheba was married, and that the punishment for adultery was death, so he cooked up a plan to kill her husband, and thereby hide his crime.
David tried several times to get Uriah to go into Bathsheba and have sex with her, hoping to cover up the fact that she was pregnant with his child. Uriah, a dutiful soldier, twice refused offers to go home. David, now worried that his adulterous act with Bathsheba would become known, treacherously decided to have Uriah murdered.
And it came to pass in the morning, that David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah. And he wrote in the letter, saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die. And it came to pass, when Joab observed the city, that he assigned Uriah unto a place where he knew that valiant men were. And the men of the city went out, and fought with Joab: and there fell some of the people of the servants of David; and Uriah the Hittite died also.
With Uriah out of the way, David — a man the Bible calls, “a man after God’s own heart” — was free to “take” Bathsheba for his own. 2 Samuel 11:26,27 says:
And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord.
Either David planned to concoct a story, saying that Uriah had sex with Bathsheba before he left for the battlefield, and she became pregnant, or the time frame is short enough that David could marry Bathsheba and claim that she got pregnant soon after their marriage. Either way, David’s subterfuge was such that he faced no consequences for his adulterous behavior.
The Evangelical world has been afire over the claim that what David did was rape, not adultery. Some Evangelicals trotted out the tired argument that I heard countless times as a youth: that Bathsheba was to blame; that she was bathing in a place where David could see her; and that David can’t be blamed for sexually desiring a beautiful naked woman. I can imagine Lori Alexander saying these very words. Regardless, wasn’t David’s behavior with Bathsheba adultery? Didn’t David arrange things in such a way that Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, would be killed (murdered), and then didn’t he take Bathsheba to be his wife? How is it that David is exonerated of all these things? Does David’s stiff prick wipe out his culpability? Is the woman always to blame?
Other Evangelicals have argued that the law of God makes clear that David having sex with Bathsheba was NOT rape.
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
The inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God is clear:
If David and Bathsheba committed adultery, then both of them should have been stoned to death.
If David raped Bathsheba and she cried out, then only David should be executed.
If David raped Bathsheba and she didn’t cry out, both of them should have been stoned to death
Wanting to protect King David’s name, some Evangelicals argue that his sex with Bathsheba couldn’t be rape because the Bible doesn’t say she cried out. No crying out, no rape. And what about the adultery, then? Doesn’t the Law of God demand David be executed, along with Bathsheba? Crickets.
Evangelicals are fond of demanding everyone follow the Law of God; yet when it comes to one of their idols, David, obeying the Law is optional. I do not doubt that it was widely known what David had done with Bathsheba and to Uriah, yet it was an innocent baby that was punished for his “sin.” More on this later.
In 2 Samuel 12, the Lord sent the prophet Nathan to David to tell him a story:
And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die. And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.
This story should settle for Evangelicals the rape or adultery question. The rich man in the story took the poor man’s ewe lamb by force. The poor man would never have willingly given the ewe to the rich man. The poor man treated the ewe like one of his children. Is this not exactly what David did with Bathsheba? Bathsheba would never have willingly had sex with David. Uriah would never say to the King, “Sure, take my wife and fuck her.” It is clear, at least to me, that David raped Bathsheba, and in an attempt to cover up his crime, had her husband murdered. The fact that Bathsheba became David’s wife changes nothing. Bathsheba knew that if it became publicly known that she was pregnant with the child of a man not her husband, she would be executed. Both David and Bathsheba knew that they were burying David’s criminal behavior by getting married.
Evangelicals love to paint their God as just, holy, and righteous. Many of them, at least privately, believe LGBTQ people should be arrested and executed. The same goes for abortion doctors who perform abortions. Some Evangelicals go so far as to say that women who “murder their babies” should be executed too. While these positions seem extreme to rational, thoughtful people, when one’s brain is chained to the Bible, reason goes out the window. Yet, when asked why David and Bathsheba were not stoned to death for their crimes, Evangelicals suddenly start stammering and come up with all sorts of patently unbiblical justifications (i.e. Jesus’ lineage is through David: He [Jesus] shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David. Luke 1:32 No David, No Jesus).
Some Evangelicals argue that God “did” punish David and Bathsheba. After Nathan told David the ewe story, he said:
Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. (2 Samuel 12:7-12)
I find it interesting that Nathan doesn’t mention David’s rape of Bathsheba. Instead, he focused on David’s murder of her husband. I thought sin was sin in the eyes of God. Regardless, David confessed his sin, and the Lord forgave him. Nathan said, “The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.” The law of God demanded David’s death, but God gave him a pass. Is it any wonder, then, that predatory Evangelical preachers, when caught with their flies open, think they can escape punishment for their crimes by saying, “My bad, Jesus.”
The summer before I left for college, a local preacher stopped by to talk to the father of a friend of mine. I was in the driveway working on a car. I knew that the preacher had left his wife and was carrying on with someone from his church. I point-blank asked him to explain his adulterous behavior. With nary a thought, he replied, “David had his Bathsheba, and I’m going to have mine!” I have never forgotten what this preacher said. His words perfectly explain how many Evangelicals view personal “sin.” Hey, no one is perfect. Look at what David did, yet he was still called a “man after God’s own heart.” Look at all the Psalms David wrote. Yes, he raped a woman and killed her husband, but look at all the good things he did for God.
David did suffer a bit for his crimes. Nathan told David that when Bathsheba gave birth to her baby, God planned to kill the child.
And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died.
Think about this story for a moment. David deserved to be executed for his crimes, and perhaps Bathsheba did too. But God, in his infinite wisdom, decided to kill an innocent baby instead. What an awesome God, right? I suspect some Evangelicals will try to put a gospel spin on this story. I know I did back in my preaching days. The innocent baby paid the ultimate price for the sins of David and Bathsheba. What a beautiful picture of what Jesus, the perfect lamb of God, did for us by dying on the cross for our sins. Woo Hoo! Ain’t God wonderful? No, he’s not.
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
The Good Book is clear; God will not punish children for the sins of their fathers. Each of us bears personal accountability for our actions. (I am aware that Exodus 20:5 contradicts Ezekiel 18:20. Dammit, I have a point to make! I’ll deal with Exodus 20 some other day.) Why did God give David a pass on his crimes?
From start to finish, the Biblical account of David and Bathsheba is one fucked up story. That many Evangelicals refuse to see David as a predator and rapist is troubling; especially those who argue that it wasn’t rape because Bathsheba didn’t scream or that she was a temptation that David couldn’t pass on. In times such as this, we are reminded that Evangelicals are a long way away from coming to terms with their warped, perverse views of women and human sexuality. As long as David is viewed as a hero, there’s no hope of progress; no hope of Evangelicals developing a sexual ethic that reflects twenty-first-century thinking.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and 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.
An Evangelical man named Gary sent me the following message:
im sorry but you are a fool…”the bible say a fool says in his heart there is no God…wait til you meet your maker one day and answer your “Maker for what you said!
First, Gary is not sorry at all. He’s angry over the fact that I said something that supposedly impugned or slandered his version of the Christian God. I have no idea what it was I said, but it sure got under Gary’s skin; so much so that he had to send a Facebook message to a stranger. What is it about Evangelicals that they think it is okay to send complete strangers messages or emails? I can say that I have NEVER even contemplated doing such a thing. It seems, at least to me, to be rude, boorish behavior.
Gary wants me to know that he considers me a FOOL! I wonder if Gary has ever read Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:22; you know, where Jesus warns people that calling someone a fool puts them in danger of hellfire? I’m sure Gary will say, the Bible says in Psalm14:1:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
See, God said it, so it is okay for Gary to call me a fool. Wait a minute, God (Jesus) also said not to call people fools. Which is it? Do we have a contradiction? Tell me it ain’t so, conflicting verses in God’s inspired, inerrant, infallible Word? Why, I have never seen such a thing! 🙂
Gary goes on to threaten me with God. Let me translate: Bruce, someday God is going to get you for the bad things you said about him! Then, you will be so sorry. My God is going to judge your sorry ass, fit you with a special torture-tolerant body, and then afflict pain, agony, and suffering on you for all eternity. And I am going to be standing over the pit of Hell laughing at you, Bruce, as you get everything you so richly deserve. No one says bad things about my God and gets away with it!
I wonder if Gary thought his threat would have any meaningful effect on me? Or is this more about him finding an outlet for his “righteous” anger; his outrage over the words of the Evangelical preacher-turned-atheist Bruce Gerencser? Surely, Gary knows that I think his peculiar God and all deities are mythical; I am no more scared of Jesus than I am of Bugs Bunny. Now, Elmer Fudd? I am scared of that crazy wabbit killer. But Bugs? He and Jesus are in the same category: characters created by human imagination. I don’t have the slightest worry about God “getting” me or opening a can of whoop-ass on me after I die.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and 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.
As an atheist, what do you make of the supernatural experiences of Marjoe Gortner who admits to being an evangelical fraud who was in it for the money, yet said he did experience healings and things he could not explain? I think also of a man named Richard Gallagher who is a well-respected psychiatrist trained at Columbia University. Gallagher is a Roman Catholic who definitely believes in demonic possession and professes to have seen it many times and has worked with Catholic exorcists. I ask this not to argue with your atheism, but what is your opinion? Did you ever experience demonic possession or any kind of supernatural things when you were a minister?
I have written about Marjoe Gortner in the past, Bruce, What Do Think of the Marjoe Gortner Story? While Gortner has repudiated his fraudulent past, he did have allegedly supernatural experiences he could not explain. What should we make of these unexplainable experiences?
Before attributing healings to God, proof of his existence must be provided. As a skeptic, I am not going to believe anything without sufficient evidence to justify a claim. When someone claims God did something, I am going to ask, “How do you know it was God that did this?” What empirical evidence can you provide that justifies your claim? Quoting the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is a book of claims; claims that require sufficient evidence to warrant belief. Gortner experienced things he couldn’t explain, but a lack of explanation doesn’t mean “God did it.” Gortner should continue to investigate these claims, but until he has evidence for them, at best, he should say, “I don’t know.” Of course, this approach is antithetical to how many, if not most Evangelicals, navigate the world. Questions and doubts are frowned upon. Certainty of belief is foundational to Evangelical Christianity. When is the last time you have heard a preacher say, “I don’t know.” Oh, these so-called men of God may privately have doubts and questions, but when they mount their respective pulpits, their words exude confidence and certainty.
The same goes for Robert Gallagher’s claims to have seen demonic possessions and exorcisms. How do we know Satan/demons exist? Are there other explanations for alleged possession behavior? As a pastor at Community Baptist Church in Elmendorf, Texas, I encountered several people the church and my fellow co-pastor, Pat Horner, claimed were demon-possessed. I concluded otherwise, believing both men were mentally ill. Prayers were uttered and exorcisms were performed, without success. What these men needed — professional psychological help — was never encouraged or offered. Horner regaled church members with stories of demonic possession from his missionary work in India and Mexico; of how he cast demons out of people. I questioned the truthfulness of these stories, but kept my doubts to myself.
Did I experience supernatural experiences as an Evangelical pastor? Sure, but I now understand that I was indoctrinated and conditioned to see the supernatural anytime I couldn’t explain something. “God did it” or “Satan did it” were common refrains when confronted with what I perceived to be experiences or behaviors I could not explain or understand. Instead of withholding judgment until sufficient evidence was garnered, I automatically assumed God or Satan/demons were the cause. Parishioners never heard me say from the pulpit, “I don’t know.” Not wanting to cause church members to lose their faith, I felt I needed to exude confidence, even when it was unwarranted.
During the deconversion process, my partner and I took a close look at the prayers we believed God answered on our behalf. We concluded that, with a handful of exceptions, our answered prayers could be explained without supernatural intervention. Either we answered our own prayers or other people did — no God needed. But, Bruce, you admit that there were a handful of answered prayers you could not explain! “God did it, right?” Certainly, that’s statistically possible, but not sufficient to convince us that a supernatural God supernaturally answered our prayers. If the existence of God hangs on a few unexplainable circumstances, that’s not sufficient evidence to convince us that said deity exists and is personally involved in our lives.
I am a skeptic and a materialist. If you want to convince me of the supernatural, I am going to insist you provide sufficient evidence for your claims. Anecdotes and personal experiences won’t cut it.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and 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.
Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, has been busy writing about me and my British friend, Ben Berwick. Thiessen swore off using our content for “teaching,” but much like a crack addict, he failed to remain drug-free. Our posts are a drug he just can’t give up. I largely ignore his posts, but I thought I would share with readers a few excerpts from his recent posts about me. Ben has also responded to Thiessen. You can read his posts here, here, and here.
What follows are excerpts from four posts Thiessen has written about me since October 28, 2024. All spelling, grammar, punctuation, and irrationality in the originals.
As for BG [Bruce Gerencser], we wonder how his health is doing as he is taking longer breaks between writing content. We hope his health has not deteriorated too much.
Sometimes we wonder if he is trying to assuage some guilt by posting content that seems more positive toward Christianity than negative. He doesn’t really critique our content anymore and publishes other topics that seem to spread the good news about Christ and Christian living rather than oppose it.
We checked the BG and MM websites to see what they had to say about the election results. Needless to say, their responses have been consistent with a majority of athletes and celebrities who have, as Sky News labels their reactions, had meltdowns.
It is actually quite disturbing to read their responses as their treatment of Mr. Trump violates a lot of characteristics they claim to have about treating others, as well as violating the scriptures, ‘do unto others as you would like to be treated’.
We find their responses to be on the verge of delivering them into the realm of insanity. Some responses had youtubers screaming and wailing toward their viewers in a totally unhinged reaction to losing. All of them, including, BG and MM, have forgotten about how to be good losers.
….
He [Bruce Gerencser] must have been watching a different Former President Trump than we saw as none of that is true. In fact, he just appointed a female head of staff so the accusations do not fit. But this is the way it is with democrats, liberals, and leftists. They hold minor things over people’s heads forever depriving them of the right to change and be better people.
….
G should also look in the mirror when he describes MR. Trump in those terms as he has treated evangelicals and other Christians in the same manner. He is not perfect so he should not be saying one word.
Plus, his words show that BG is part of the problem much like the New York and New Jersey Governors, along with the female NY Attorney General who have made public statements containing threats against Mr. Trump.
The problem is not Mr. Trump, but the attitude of those who oppose him. We listened to his victory speech and none of those words ring true as Mr. Trump seeks to heal the nation not continue the divisiveness that the democrats have caused.
….
This is nothing but lies as Mr. Trump praised his wife as well as other women working for him throughout the campaign. Since he has been faithful to one wife for a long time, it is doubtful he is a predator. But democrats, etc., ignore the good and only focus on the bad to dehumanize others while trying to bully them into submission.
….
Except for the last line, none of this is true. Harris got over 65 million votes and some of those had to be men. or all the celebrities and athletes who said they would vote for her changed their minds and voted for Trump. But this is the level of nonsense the left brings to America.
They [Bruce Gerencser and Ben Berwick] look for excuses to blame anyone or anything for their candidate’s failure. The loss rests solely on Harris and her advisors shoulders for hiding away from press conferences and saying she would not change a thing from what Biden had done.
The mere fact that both people were unqualified & uneducated seems to be outside of the democrats scope and view. They suffer too much from TDS to see the real picture.
….
This is just another lie as it ignores Mr. Trump’s accomplishments in his first term. It is amazing that BG ignores all the people who have been killed by illegal aliens under Biden’s & Harris’ watch. The country has been through 4 years of dark times already and Mr. Trump, with God’s help, will change that.
No one cares which party BG will support. He is just a speck of sand in a sea of sand hills. His insane rhetoric puts him on the fringe and is in need of some therapy. Then there is MM who did not write as much but felt he had to attack Mr. Trump as well.
….
This is just stupid and not dealing with reality. It is also not true. It is a waste of time proving how wrong he is. YOu can read some of the accomplishments here. Besides building a wall to protect the country and fellow citizens he loves, Mr. Trump had a great first term. As for cognitive decay, that is just wishful thinking by anti-Trump people.
….
The evidence that BG and MM have decided against following god and his way is seen in their quotes. They think they are better by forcing or bullying others to do as they want. But in reality, that makes them worse than they accuse Mr. Trump and evangelicals of being.
We have often said you cannot be Christian and vote for or support democrats but as you can see by the reaction of the athletes, celebrities, and politicians, as well as their supporters, there is nothing Christian in the democrat party or side of politics.
It is best for Christians to stay away from them and the misguided ‘Evangelicals for Harris’ and similar people. Do unto others does not exclude those you disagree with and Mr. Trump seems to be extending the fig leaf of peace to save the nation he loves and protect his fellow citizens. He gets it while many of the democrat supporters, etc., do not.
No matter where Christians turn, there is always some unbeliever putting forth often refuted arguments and thinking those arguments are true. BG is just one of those people and he continues to proclaim long-dead arguments that go nowhere and prove nothing. Here are some samples of his attempts to persuade himself that God does not exist.
….
He is wrong of course. Atheists have tried for millennia to produce alternative answers to the Biblical record. They have always failed every time. Our origins is just one subject that atheists can’t answer as they cannot produce one shred of credible evidence supporting their point of view.
….
Bg actually does know as he preached about it for 25 years. He just won’t admit it. Christians know because we have all the evidence supporting the biblical record. He won’t admit that either.
….
Being a ‘faith claim’ does not exclude the answer from being true. Especially since all research fields have produced more evidence supporting the biblical record, this is more than a faith claim. It is proclaiming what truly happened.
The question ‘Were you there…’ is not illogical because it points out the fact that unbelievers are making faith claims of their own. They were not there, they did not see life develop thus their claims about life development are all based on faith.
Unbelieving scientists do not know what took place as they have no verifiable or credible evidence supporting their views. Since the Big Bang and Evolutionary theories violate the observable principle of science, these so-called learned men and women cannot come to the truth. They do not know if their mechanisms actually work or not.
….
Sure it is fair to ask that question of Christians. We may not have been there BUT we got the word from someone who was. The scientists do not even have that advantage. His point i smoot as everyone has to take the scientists’ claims on faith as no one but scientists were in their laboratories when the experiments were conducted.
In other words, BG and other unbelievers do not have a leg to stand on. Their conclusions are based on faith as they cannot go back in time to see if their results matched their historical claims about life development. Evolution and the Big Bang are nothing but faith claims.
….
Evolutionary scientists do the same thing. They do special pleading as everyone is supposed to take their word for it, an action Bg and other unbelievers hate when asked to do it for God. Then, all of science’s claims are human-written making their argument against biblical authors and God, moot.
….
Yes, there is but BG won’t admit it.
….
Not true.
….
Also not true and we have heard of more scientific lies and distortion of scientific facts committed by unbelievers than by Christians. The only people trying to fit the ‘evidence’ to their theory are those who accept and believe the evolutionary theory.
….
We know of many cases where forensic scientists have altered, distorted, and misrepresented science and scientific results to get convictions than Christians have been accused of. BG has no argument because he keeps repeating the same old tired arguments that have been refuted for millennia.
No unbeliever has any smoking gun evidence hidden away that would destroy or prove the Bible untrue. They are desperately grabbing at straws knowing they cannot win this debate.
BG has written an article lambasting Christians and God over a lack of supposed healing/
….
He and other unbelievers will never understand how God works. The main reason is that they do not believe in God or that he exists. So how can they understand? They will reject any legitimate explanation in favor of trashing spiritual beliefs.
….
But again, unbelievers do not accept these facts so they continue to criticize the Christian faith. The Bible also tells us that God’s ways and thinking are higher than ours, so how can Christians fully understand something that is beyond their capacity to grasp? It is for sure that unbelievers cannot grasp the reasons God does what he does.
….
They would rather insult and attack than take the time to honestly learn about God. It is not up to us to criticize God’s decisions rather we are to learn from our experience and see how God works everything together for his good and ours.
….
Yes, God could have healed her and millions of other Christians immediately. Would that have brought the person to a greater knowledge of God or to a level of trust? Not always. There may be lessons God wants the woman and other Christians to learn. We just are not privy to God’s intentions and he does not answer to us.
Instead, we learn to be patient until it is time to learn the correct lesson. But one of the most important lessons is that Christians are under, the verse, ‘it is appointed unto man once to die’ In other words Christians die and there is no escaping that event just because they believe in Jesus.
Yes, Jesus will heal people but when it is their time to pass on, there is no more healing in the works for those individuals.
….
We could say the same thing about modern secular medicine. Many doctors are great diagnosticians, but when it comes to healing, their track record thanthey claim God is in this department. Has BG looked at himself lately?
He claims to have several diseases and trusts medical science to find a cure. Yet he has suffered for approx., 14 years, and medical science has no cure for many of his ailments. WHy does he trust medical science and suffer through such great pain and discomfort when medical science has failed him?
Non-Christians like to point fingers and accuse God of the failures that medical science has. Unfortunately for BG, medical science is not greater than he is and has no higher purpose in keeping him sick.
….
They may avoid healing him so they can have a continuous cash income from his insurance but they are no better than he accuses God.
….
No, not true. The bad light is caused by unbelievers as they fail to understand how life works. The Bible tells us that both the righteous and unrighteous will suffer so we were warned about this in advance. We accept the fact that there will be Christians who suffer medically. It is a fact of life.
We just leave these things in God’s hands and look for the solution with his guidance. As the Bible says, we are not to worry about these things.
The unbeliever will rarely grasp these truths and when they recognize that they don’t it is best that they just ask questions and consider the answers honestly. They are in no position to criticize as they do not have an alternative to God. BG says:
For the atheist, in science we trust.
That is a misplaced trust for 100% of all medical science patients have died from day one of human existence till now. That is a lousy statistic to build trust in something that has no power over life or death. The track record of science is dismal and at no time should Christians trust science over God.
— end of excerpts.
As you can readily see, Thiessen doesn’t critique or respond to my posts. He quotes Bible verses, personally attacks me, and pompously and arrogantly says I am wrong. His comments about my health were offensive, well beyond thoughtful dialog. Why he refuses to thoughtfully and intelligently respond to my writing is a question for him to answer. I have my own opinion on the matter, but I will refrain from sharing it.
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.
Recently, a Christian sent me the following question:
Do you think your mother-in-law was ridiculously stupid for loving Jesus? Or brainwashed and just really dumb?
I have written a handful of posts over the years about my late mother-in-law. While I deeply loved Polly’s parents, I had a strained, acrimonious relationship with Mom. There are many reasons for this, but they are not the subject of this post today. Mom was a lifelong Fundamentalist Christian, both as a member of the Church of the Nazarene and several Independent Fundamentalist Baptist congregations. Mom attended the Newark Baptist Temple, pastored by her brother-in-law James Dennis (The Family Patriarch is Dead: My Life With James Dennis), from 1976 to her death in 2023. Mom and Dad left the Baptist Temple for eight years to start a new IFB church in Buckeye Lake. Actually, Dad and I started the church, but Mom was there in “spirit.” She never wanted to leave the Baptist Temple, but felt her duty was to support her husband. The church eventually closed its doors and Mom and Dad returned to the Baptist Temple.
Mom was a devoted follower of Jesus. She daily read her Bible and prayed, sang in the choir, and faithfully attended church on Sundays and Wednesdays. That said, the sum of her understanding of the Bible and Christian theology came from whatever her pastor said from the pulpit. Dad, a pastor, was not much better. I don’t fault them for their lack of knowledge. I pastored countless Moms and Dads over the years; good people who loved Jesus, but lacked a comprehensive understanding of Christianity. They believed whatever their pastor believed. He would never steer them wrong, right?
a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas.
Brainwashed people lack the will and power to believe differently from their church and pastor. Mom willingly believed what she did, even though indoctrination and conditioning played a significant part in her beliefs. Outside of hearing me preach from time to time, Mom never heard anything from the pulpit that challenged her beliefs. As far as I know, Mom never changed her beliefs, going to the grave believing the same things she did as a young adult.
So, was Mom stupid or dumb? No. She was a product of her religious/social environment. She was, however, ignorant about the history and nature of the Bible, Christianity, and science. As far as I know, outside of devotionally reading the Bible, the only other books Mom read were Christian romance and historical novels. She had little to no interest in the complexities of the world, choosing instead to fix her mind on Jesus and church. Politically, Mom was a right-wing Republican. She voted for Donald Trump twice, as did almost everyone in her church. Yet, when asked about specific Trump policy positions, she was largely ignorant and indifferent.
I could have, over the years, eviscerated Mom’s beliefs, but to what end? Nothing I could say would move her from her rigid Fundamentalist Christian beliefs. And so I didn’t try. She went to her grave believing she was going to Heaven and would see her dead Christian relatives again. Sadly, we will never see her again since there is no life after death.
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.
Come January 20, 2025, Donald Trump will be sworn in as the forty-seventh president of the United States. A grossly unfit, vulgar man, Trump won both the popular vote and the electoral college. Worse, Republicans took back the U.S. Senate and will likely continue to narrowly control the House of Representatives. With full knowledge of Trump’s racism, bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia, and criminal conduct, a majority of voting Americans voted him into office. Rational, thoughtful people saw Trump as unfit for office, but tens of millions of rural white working-class people and Latinos thought differently. Even women, knowing Trump is a sexual predator who routinely and frequently dehumanizes women, voted for him. We want to blame white Evangelicals for blessing the United States with a second term of Trump’s lunacy, but the fact is, Trump won virtually every demographic category that matters.
Kamala Harris had a hard road to walk in her attempt to defeat Donald Trump:
Harris, largely an unknown candidate, had 100 days to mount an effective campaign. Trump has spent the past nine years, from the trip down the escalator to today, campaigning and promoting the MAGA/Trump brand.
Harris refused to distance herself from Joe Biden, saying that there wasn’t anything she would do differently from President Joe Biden. Hooking her wagon to a President with a 40 percent approval rating was a bad idea.
Harris is a woman. Some men won’t vote for a female candidate regardless of her party and policies.
Harris is Black. Many Americans won’t vote for a Black candidate regardless of his or her party and policies.
Both Harris and Tim Walz failed to adequately address the skeletons in their respective closets.
Harris made several mistakes that cost her votes.
First, Harris chose to ignore and distance herself from Israel’s war against the Palestinian people. Not allowing pro-Palestinians to speak at the Democratic Convention was a big mistake. Not supporting an Israeli arms embargo was a bad idea.
Second, Harris flip-flopped on numerous policies, abandoning the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and attempting to position herself as a centrist (as Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton before her).
Third, Biden, Harris, and the Democratic Party as a whole, ignored the economic plight of working-class Americans, telling them that their struggles with inflation and never-ending price increases were not a big deal; and that the U.S. economy was booming. Democratic politicians and cable news pundits — especially on MSNBC — ignored the plight of the poor and working-class people, choosing instead to tout and preach up Bidenomics.
Fourth, Americans are tired of endless wars. The United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan was, by any measure, a debacle. Harris uttered not a word about the American war machine, the military-industrial complex, and runaway defense/security budgets. My God, Harris climbed in bed with Dick Cheney — a war criminal.
Fifth, Harris provided no comprehensive answer to the illegal immigration crisis at our southern border. Trump is right to point out we have an immigration problem even if his “answers” are racist and immoral.
I do not doubt that Trump will cause untold harm to our Republic and standing in the world. With Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as trusted advisors, it is likely the American people have hard times ahead. How Democrats respond remains to be seen. Personally, I am unsure of my continued support of the Democrats. I need time and distance before I decide who I want to support with my vote and money. As of today, I wonder if I should refocus my efforts on local/state issues. It’s been three presidential elections since the Democratic candidate for president was someone I voted for in the primary. Clinton, Biden, and Harris were not my first, second, or third candidates. I increasingly think that I have become too progressive/liberal for the Democratic Party.
In the end, the election was about despair. Despair over futures that evaporated with deindustrialization. Despair over the loss of 30 million jobs in mass layoffs. Despair over austerity programs and the funneling of wealth upwards into the hands of rapacious oligarchs. Despair over a liberal class that refuses to acknowledge the suffering it orchestrated under neoliberalism or embrace New Deal type programs that will ameliorate this suffering. Despair over the futile, endless wars, as well as the genocide in Gaza, where generals and politicians are never held accountable. Despair over a democratic system that has been seized by corporate and oligarchic power.
This despair has been played out on the bodies of the disenfranchised through opioid and alcoholism addictions, gambling, mass shootings, suicides — especially among middle-aged white males — morbid obesity, and the investment of our emotional and intellectual life in tawdry spectacles and the allure of magical thinking, from the absurd promises of the Christian right to the Oprah-like belief that reality is never an impediment to our desires. These are the pathologies of a deeply diseased culture, what Friedrich Nietzsche calls an aggressive despiritualized nihilism.
Donald Trump is a symptom of our diseased society. He is not its cause. He is what is vomited up out of decay. He expresses a childish yearning to be an omnipotent god. This yearning resonates with Americans who feel they have been treated like human refuse. But the impossibility of being a god, as Ernest Becker writes, leads to its dark alternative — destroying like a god. This self-immolation is what comes next.
Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party, along with the establishment wing of the Republican Party, which allied itself with Harris, live in their own non-reality-based belief system. Harris, who was anointed by party elites and never received a single primary vote, proudly trumped her endorsement by Dick Cheney, a politician who left office with a 13 percent approval rating. The smug, self-righteous “moral” crusade against Trump stokes the national reality television show that has replaced journalism and politics. It reduces a social, economic, and political crisis to the personality of Trump. It refuses to confront and name the corporate forces responsible for our failed democracy. It allows Democratic politicians to blithely ignore their base – 77 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents support an arms embargo against Israel. The open collusion with corporate oppression and refusal to heed the desires and needs of the electorate neuters the press and Trump critics. These corporate puppets stand for nothing, other than their own advancement. The lies they tell to working men and women, especially with programs such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), do far more damage than any of the lies uttered by Trump.
….
The American dream has become an American nightmare.
The social bonds, including jobs that gave working Americans a sense of purpose and stability, that gave them meaning and hope, have been sundered. The stagnation of tens of millions of lives, the realization that it will not be better for their children, the predatory nature of our institutions, including education, health care, and prisons, have engendered, along with despair, feelings of powerlessness, and humiliation. It has bred loneliness, frustration, anger, and a sense of worthlessness.
“When life is not worth living, everything becomes a pretext for ridding ourselves of it … ,” Émile Durkheim wrote. “There is a collective mood, as there is an individual mood, that inclines nations to sadness. … For individuals are too closely involved in the life of society for it to be sick without their being affected. Its suffering inevitably becomes theirs.”
Decayed societies, where a population is stripped of political, social, and economic power, instinctively reach out for cult leaders. I watched this during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia. The cult leader promises a return to a mythical golden age and vows, as Trump does, to crush the forces embodied in demonized groups and individuals that are blamed for their misery. The more outrageous cult leaders become, the more cult leaders flout law and social conventions, the more they gain in popularity. Cult leaders are immune to the norms of established society. This is their appeal. Cult leaders seek total power. Those who follow them grant them this power in the desperate hope that the cult leaders will save them.
All cults are personality cults. Cult leaders are narcissists. They demand obsequious fawning and total obedience. They prize loyalty above competence. They wield absolute control. They do not tolerate criticism. They are deeply insecure, a trait they attempt to cover up with bombastic grandiosity. They are amoral and emotionally and physically abusive. They see those around them as objects to be manipulated for their own empowerment, enjoyment, and often sadistic entertainment. All those outside the cult are branded as forces of evil, prompting an epic battle whose natural expression is violence.
We will not convince those who have surrendered their agency to a cult leader and embraced magical thinking through rational argument. We will not coerce them into submission. We will not find salvation for them or ourselves by supporting the Democratic Party. Whole segments of American society are now bent on self-immolation. They despise this world and what it has done to them. Their personal and political behavior is willfully suicidal. They seek to destroy, even if destruction leads to violence and death. They are no longer sustained by the comforting illusion of human progress, losing the only antidote to nihilism.
….
We must invest our energy into organizing mass movements to overthrow the corporate state through sustained acts of mass civil disobedience. This includes the most powerful weapon we possess – the strike. By turning our ire on the corporate state, we name the true sources of power and abuse. We expose the absurdity of blaming our demise on demonized groups such as undocumented workers, Muslims, or Blacks. We give people an alternative to a corporate-indentured Democratic Party that cannot be rehabilitated. We make possible the restoration of an open society, one that serves the common good rather than corporate profit. We must demand nothing less than full employment, guaranteed minimum incomes, universal health insurance, free education at all levels, robust protection of the natural world, and an end to militarism and imperialism. We must create the possibility for a life of dignity, purpose, and self-esteem. If we do not, it will ensure a Christianized fascism and ultimately, with the accelerating ecocide, our obliteration.
As you might surmise, I will have a lot more to say on these issues in the days/months/years that lie ahead. Today, I am depressed, filled with despair and anger towards millions of stupid Americans. In time, I will reorientate myself to the present reality. I am not ready to quit fighting, though I do plan to rethink my methodologies and support of the Democratic Party.
It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they’re right.
Today, while the very rich are doing phenomenally well, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and we have more income and wealth inequality than ever before. Unbelievably, real, inflation-accounted-for weekly wages for the average American worker are actually lower now than they were 50 years ago.
Today, despite an explosion in technology and worker productivity, many young people will have a worse standard of living than their parents. And many of them worry that Artificial Intelligence and robotics will make a bad situation even worse.
Today, despite spending far more per capita than other countries, we remain the only wealthy nation not to guarantee health care to all as a human right and we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. We, alone among major countries, cannot even guarantee paid family and medical leave.
Today, despite strong opposition from a majority of Americans, we continue to spend billions funding the extremist Netanyahu government’s all out war against the Palestinian people which has led to the horrific humanitarian disaster of mass malnutrition and the starvation of thousands of children.
Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign? Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing? Do they have any ideas as to how we can take on the increasingly powerful Oligarchy which has so much economic and political power? Probably not.
In the coming weeks and months those of us concerned about grassroots democracy and economic justice need to have some very serious political discussions.
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.
CHARISMA News posted a story titled How the Holy Spirit Prepared This Woman for Her Leukemia Diagnosis. While I certainly sympathize with this woman who has a life-threatening illness, her recounting of what God told her about her affliction provides an excellent example of the schizophrenic, contradictory view many Christians have of God. Here’s what the Holy Spirit — the favorite “God” of Charismatics — purportedly said:
Here, you are about to walk through something. I didn’t do it to you. I’m not causing this. You know, a good Father doesn’t inflict pain on His children, but you’re about to walk through something. But do you trust that I’ve already been where you’re going? Do you trust that I’ve already walked the journey you’re about to walk?
As an atheist, I don’t believe in the existence of deities. Thus, when Christians say they talk to God and God talks to them, I know the only voices they hear are their own; and the only answered prayers are those that are fulfilled by those doing the praying. In other words, for many people, prayer is a mental activity of great value; one that leads them to believe that their peculiar God is not only hearing their prayers, but answering them. There’s no evidence for the claim that God hears and answers prayers. Either you believe he does, or you don’t. Either you have faith, or you don’t. Any cursory examination of one’s prayer life will lead even the most devoted petitioner to conclude that either God doesn’t exist or he is indifferent to the plight of his children. If God is anything, he is like Robert Tilton. You may remember Tilton as the TV evangelist who was caught removing the cash/checks from prayer requests sent to him, and throwing the unread requests in the dumpster.
I know that nothing I say will reach Evangelicals who sincerely believe God is their best friend/buddy/lover. For such people, they just “know” that their God is listening to and talking to them (in a still small voice). They just “know” that the triune God is personally and intimately involved in their lives, even though the evidence suggests otherwise. These beliefs are reinforced weekly at countless Evangelical houses of worship, and on social media, news sites, and blogs. Everything believers hear and read tells them that their presuppositions about God, the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are true. An atheistic curmudgeon such as myself will be dismissed out of hand as a hater of God/Christianity/Christians. All I know to do is point out the contradictions and absurdities in their claims.
The woman with leukemia in the CHARISMA article believes God told her:
You are going to walk through “something.”
Whatever happens, I didn’t cause it.
Whatever happens, I didn’t do it.
A good Father doesn’t inflict pain on his children.
Trust me.
God could have immediately healed this woman, but he didn’t. Why? Why do Evangelicals go through untold pain and suffering, all the while believing that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives; that God only wants what is “best” for them? It seems to me that Jesus, the Great Physician, has great diagnostic skills but is a miserable failure when it comes to stopping pain and delivering Evangelicals from physical afflictions. Well, except for death, anyway. The Bible says Jesus holds the keys to life and death. Based on the obituaries I read, God’s not into healing people. But, killing them? Now that’s a gig he can get into.
Evangelicals supposedly believe God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. In other words, God is all-powerful and sees, hears, and knows everything. Evangelicals supposedly believe God is the sovereign creator and ruler of the universe; that nothing happens that isn’t according to God’s purpose and plan. Evangelicals supposedly believe that God is intimately involved in their lives. How do we square these commonly held beliefs with what the Holy Spirit allegedly said to the woman with leukemia?
According to the Bible, God uses pain, suffering, and loss to test, try, and chastise his children. Unless God has outsourced these things, he alone is responsible for what this woman went through, and what every Christian goes through when facing the various maladies that afflict the human race. If God is not responsible for these things, who is? And should whomever the person/being is, be the God we worship? Shouldn’t worship be reserved for whoever is in charge?
The real issue is that Christians such as this woman know that believers with cancer and other dreaded diseases put God in a bad light. Evangelicals say God loves and cares for them, hears their every prayer, and promises to never leave or forsake them. It is clear, at least to me, that God is nothing, if not indifferent and negligent. Again, this woman knows how things look, so she goes out of her way to defend God’s honor and to exempt him from any culpability. God said, Hey, don’t blame me for your leukemia. I didn’t do it!
According to this woman, the Holy Spirit told her that God never inflicts pain on his children. Evidently, her Bible must not contain the plethora of verses that show a violent God raining down all sorts of pain and suffering on Christians and non-Christians alike. And if the Bible is not enough evidence, go to any Evangelical church and you will find countless people in pain — be it physical or emotional. The Holy Spirit lied to this woman. Pain is very much a part of the human experience. One’s faith or lack thereof does not exempt one from pain and suffering. If God is who Evangelicals say he is, then he’s to blame for the afflictions of the human race.
The voice this woman heard in her head was her own. The Holy Spirit’s words reflect how she views God, not some message from him. At best, God “speaking” to her is a coping mechanism; a way to make sense of what she was going through. All of us find ways to deal with pain and suffering — even atheists. The difference for the atheist, of course, is that he or she lives in a world where human afflictions are explained scientifically, not through appeals to magic. It sucks that this woman had leukemia. However, any healing that comes her way will be the result of human instrumentality, not divine intervention. For the atheist, in science we trust. While certain forms of spirituality might have a cathartic effect, when it comes to treatment, what we need are trained medical professionals, not ancient imaginary deities.
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.
Several days ago, I received the following email from an Evangelical man:
So where did it all come from. The known universe before the bang?
Over the past seventeen years, I have received scores of emails from Evangelicals posing this very question or something similar. Evangelicals think that this question is some sort of “gotcha” question atheists can’t answer; that by being unable to answer this question, atheists show the bankruptcy of atheism.
I am going to surprise the man who wrote this email by answering his question: I DON’T KNOW! No one knows where “it” came from; where the universe came from before the Big Bang. Atheists can’t answer this question, but neither can Christians. Saying GOD DID IT! is a faith claim, as is quoting verses from Genesis 1-3. To quote the great intellectual and scholar Ken “Hambo” Ham, “Were you there?” Ham loves to use this line of illogic when challenging evolutionists and other scientists. Since these learned men and women didn’t observe firsthand the beginning of the universe (and what became before the Big Bang), they can’t possibly “know” what happened. However, what’s good for the proverbial goose is good for the gander. When Evangelicals say GOD DID IT! it is fair for scientists to ask, “Were you there?” If not, then Christians cannot possibly know whether the Christian God created the universe or exists outside of space and time. These are faith claims, not science.
Of course, Ham and other creationists resort to special pleading to defend and justify their beliefs. The Bible is different from any other book, Evangelicals say. Written by God through human instrumentality, the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and infallible. Thus, we can KNOW who created the universe and when and how he did it by reading the Bible! The problem with this argument is that there is no evidence for the claim that the Christian God wrote the Bible. There’s a plethora of evidence, however, that suggests the Bible is the work of fallible men. Believing the Bible was written by God and is somehow, in some way, a one-of-a-kind divine text requires faith. Deep down, creationists know this, and that’s why Answers in Genesis, Creation Research Society, Institute for Creation Research, and dozens of other groups, spend countless hours trying to make science “fit” the creationist narrative. Faith is not enough for these zealots. They desperately want respectability and are willing to lie, distort scientific facts, and misrepresent science to get it. Yet, despite all their “scientific” work, creationism remains a matter of faith, not science.
Creationists can no more answer the aforementioned questions than atheists can. The difference between Evangelicals and evolutionists (a derogatory term often used by Evangelicals as a label for science in general) however, is that scientists continue to work towards answering the question of how the universe began and explaining what existed before the Big Bang. Science may never satisfactorily and completely answer these questions, and I am fine with that. Not every question — presently — is answerable. Evangelicals, armed with arrogance and certainty, think the Bible reveals to them everything they need to know about life. “The Bible says” becomes the answer to countless complex, difficult science questions. The underlying issue is that Evangelicals need to be right; to have “Biblical” answers for every question. Evangelicals have become the insufferable man at a party who dominates the discussion and has answers for every question. Or at least he thinks he does, anyway.
Let me conclude this post with this: atheism and evolution are not the same, any more than atheism and liberalism are the same. Atheism is defined this way: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. While it is certainly true that many atheists are evolutionists and political liberals, that cannot be said of all atheists. Atheism is a singular statement about the existence of deities. From there, atheists go in all sorts of ways.
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.
