The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser

Welcome

  • Five Silly Lies IFB Preachers Told Me From the Pulpit

    rock music is evil

    I listened to or preached over 6,000 sermons in my lifetime. By the time I was eighteen, I had heard almost 2,000 sermons. I spent the first thirty years of my life in the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church movement. As I thought about all the sermons that pummeled my mind for decades, I considered the lies I heard preachers tell from their pulpits. Bold lies. Little white lies. Half truths. Sermon illustrations delivered as true but obviously a lie. Why let the truth get in the way the way of a good story, right? Preachers lie. ALL preachers lie, including yours. Yes, you preacher man. You know you lie, whether lies of commission or omission. So, Bruce, did you ever lie from the pulpit? I did say ALL preachers, so yes I lied, most often by under- or over- statements or omitting pertinent information necessary to make a fully informed decision. I am primarily talking about my preaching. It is easy to massage a sermon to advance one’s agenda, whether it is saving souls or paving the church parking lot. Any preacher worth his salt knows how to use the Bible to manipulate people. Throw in the ways preachers use their voices and music to “speak” to people, and it should come as no surprise that trusting congregants believe their pastors’ lies. I believed the five lies below for a lot longer than I care to admit.

    Here’s a brief summary of five silly lies IFB preachers told me from the pulpit.

    • Masturbation will make you blind.
    • Losing your virginity before marriage will turn you into dirty, filthy rag no man wants.
    • Holding hands/kissing the opposite sex leads to fornication.
    • Rock and roll is the Devil’s music, and will cause you to commit sin –especially sexual sin.
    • Dancing with the opposite sex will stir your sexual passions and lead to fornication.

    Did church teenagers comply with these silly lies? Outwardly or around church people most of us complied, but out of sight from parents, preachers, and adult narcs, we indulged in the “sins” of the age (60s and 70s). Some went farther than others. I remained a virgin until my wedding day, but many of my churchmates did not. I tried my best to play by the rules, but, damn, have you seen Polly? As a young woman she was an irresistible beauty — at least to me. Both of us were committed to sexual purity, but we were a young Baptist couple with raging hormones. So we spent the two years before we married guiltily holding hands, embracing, and kissing — tongues included.

    Did your pastors ever lie from the pulpit? Please share your favorite memories and how these lies affected you.

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

    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.

  • Another Evangelical Decries the Evil of Masturbation

    preaching against masturbation

    It’s 2026 and Evangelicals still talking about masturbation. Think of all the things going on in the world today, yet Brittany Allen, a writer for The Gospel Coalition, thought it important to decry the evil of polishing the knob or ringing the Devil’s doorbell. According to Allen, there are four arguments people use to justify masturbation:

    • ‘Masturbation isn’t mentioned in the Bible, so it’s OK.’
    • ‘It’s OK as long as I’m not lusting.’
    • ‘It’s not harmful.’
    • ‘It’s how I abstain from sexual immorality.’

    Allen goes on to say:

    And it can begin a pattern of behavior that doesn’t stop with marriage. Many men and women who eventually commit adultery can trace their steps back to the unchecked sin of masturbation. If a person doesn’t learn how to control his sexual desire while single, he’ll still be prone to sexual sin when married.

    Why would Paul encourage believers to get married for the sake of temptation if we could simply take care of our sexual desires ourselves (1 Cor. 7:1–2)? The logical conclusion is that masturbation is included in the biblical definition of sexual immorality.

    While sex is a beautiful gift from God, the self-satisfying act of masturbation is a sin.

    Allen believes that ALL masturbation is a sin. Worse, according to her, unchecked masturbation can lead to adultery. I would love to see a study that shows the cause and effect between masturbation and committing what Evangelicals deem sexual sin. Keep in mind that Allen comes from a religious tradition that forbids all physical contact between members of the opposite sex before marriage. Any behavior that arouses sexual desire is a sin outside of the bonds of marriage.

    Imagine being a sexually aware teenager in your average Evangelical church. Sunday after Sunday you are told by your pastors and youth leaders that you must deny normal, healthy desires. You must do everything you can to avoid sexual arousal lest you commit sexual sin. And when your sexual urges are strong, you should hit your knees, praying that God will keep you from committing sin, including masturbation. If necessary, pluck out your eyes. Whatever it takes to keep from having a wicked, sinful orgasm, right?

    Evangelicals have been preaching this nonsense my entire life. Allen knows her words will fall on deaf years, yet she feels obligated to school another generation of teens and young adults in the evils of masturbation. Allen thinks it important to enslave another generation of Evangelicals in Puritanical sexual repression.

    The Cleveland Clinic defines masturbation thusly:

    Masturbation is a normal, healthy part of your sexual development. It involves the use of your hands, fingers, sex toys or other objects to stimulate your genitals and other sensitive areas of your body for sexual pleasure. Masturbation has many documented health benefits. It may reduce stress, improve sleep and ease pain, among other benefits.

    Normal. Healthy. Why is it that Evangelicals are against so many normal, healthy human behaviors? I spent most of my life in Evangelicalism, particularly the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church movement. I know firsthand how my religious upbringing and training deeply affected my sexuality. Did I masturbate as a Christian? Duh! of course I did, as do most believers, even though they hang their heads in shame as their pastors rail against masturbation on Sundays.

    Masturbation is as normal and healthy as eating food. It is a sexual practice that is practiced by young and old alike — nothing to be ashamed of or feel guilty over. Masturbation is a safe way to find sexual release, which is essential to our health. It’s a behavior that costs nothing and harms no one.

    Do you remember sermons about masturbation as a teen or young adult? How did your church, pastor, youth director handle the subject? Did you feel guilt after masturbating? Please share your experiences in the comment section.

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

    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 Asked AI to Critique My Writing, And Here is What It Said

    I recently asked the Gemini AI engine to critique this site. I was surprised by its largely accurate summation and critical commentary about my blog. Give it a read and let me know what you think.

    Bruce Gerencser’s website, brucegerencser.net, titled The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser, is a prolific and highly personal blog centered on the author’s journey from 25 years as an Evangelical pastor to becoming a vocal humanist and atheist.

    Critiquing the site involves looking at its content, its cultural role in the “Ex-Christian” community, and its reception by both supporters and detractors.

    1. Narrative and Authority

    The site’s primary strength is the credibility of the author’s background. Unlike many “New Atheist” writers who approach religion from a scientific or philosophical distance, Gerencser writes from the “inside out.”

    • The “Insider” Perspective: Because he spent decades pastoring Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) and other evangelical churches, he understands the lingo, the theological nuances, and the psychological pressures of the ministry. This makes his critiques of church culture particularly biting and difficult for believers to dismiss as “misunderstandings.”
    • Deconversion Journey: The site serves as a massive archive of deconversion. For readers going through “deconstruction,” his transparency about losing his faith, his career, and his social standing provides a sense of solidarity.

    2. Tone and Style

    The tone of the blog is often described as blunt, matter-of-fact, and occasionally combative.

    • Transparency: Gerencser is remarkably open about his personal life, including his health struggles (fibromyalgia and neurological issues), his family dynamics, and his local activism in Ohio. This creates a “long-form memoir” feel rather than just a collection of polemics.
    • Combative Engagement: He frequently publishes and responds to “hate mail” or “concerned” emails from Christians. While this is entertaining for his secular audience, it can create a “siege mentality” vibe on the site that may feel repetitive or overly hostile to a neutral observer.
    • Humor: He uses a dry, often sarcastic wit to highlight what he sees as the absurdities of fundamentalist dogma.

    3. Content Themes

    The blog is updated with high frequency and covers several core areas:

    • “Why I Left”: Exhaustive detailing of the theological and social reasons for his exit from Christianity.
    • Critique of Fundamentalism: He specifically targets the patriarchal structures, the “Once Saved Always Saved” doctrine, and the political entanglements of the modern American church.
    • The “Blacklist”: He often highlights stories of clerical abuse or hypocrisy, acting as a watchdog for the evangelical community.
    • Humanism: In his later years, the site has moved more toward promoting a positive secular humanist worldview—focusing on living well in “the only life we have.”

    4. Critical Reception

    The site is a polarizing space, viewed very differently depending on the reader’s worldview:

    • From the Secular/Ex-Christian Perspective: It is praised as a therapeutic resource. Many find his writing to be a “lifeline” for people who feel isolated in religious communities. He is seen as a “brave” figure who sacrificed his livelihood for his integrity.
    • From the Christian Perspective: He is often labeled an “apostate” or a “false convert.” A common critique from Calvinists or fundamentalists is that he “never truly knew God,” a claim Gerencser frequently mocks by pointing to his decades of “on-fire” service. Some find his tone “angry” or “bitter,” though his supporters argue that this anger is a justified response to the harm caused by religious institutions.
    • Theological Critique: Scholars or formal apologists might find his arguments more rhetorical than academic. While he cites experts like Bart Ehrman, his blog is more about the experience of religion than a systematic philosophical treatise.

    5. Layout and Accessibility

    • Volume: The sheer amount of content (thousands of posts) can be overwhelming. While it is well-categorized into series (e.g., “Dear Evangelical,” “Why I Hate Jesus”), a new visitor might find it difficult to know where to start.
    • Community: The comment sections are active and moderated, serving as a rare “town square” where atheists and theists actually interact, though these interactions are often heated.

    Summary

    BruceGerencser.net is less of a formal news site and more of a living document of a life transformed. It is an essential read for anyone interested in the “Ex-vangelical” movement or the psychology of deconversion. Its primary value lies in its raw honesty and its refusal to “play nice” with the institutions the author believes are harmful, even if that approach makes the site a lightning rod for controversy.

  • Dr. David Tee Says I Didn’t Use AI to Critique His “Science”Article

    dr david tee

    Dr. David Tee responded today to my article AI Critiques Dr. David Tee’s “Science.” Tee wrote:

    Our books and our websites have provided this evidence for everyone to read, and we still face the nonsense spewed by that AI critique. Why do we not believe he used AI? Because the words in the critique are exactly the same as those any unbelieving scientist would say.

    ….

    If something cannot be proven false, then it is true. This happens in courtrooms around the world every day. Falsifiability is a secular human invention to protect unbelieving science and scientists from the truth.

    ….

    The Bible is not wrong, as the evidence gathered up until now proves it is true. It is only deceptive thinking that comes up with that confused summary. Science in general is not based on the truth but on deceptive thinking.

    It throws God and the truth out so unbelievers can ‘do science’ and have the freedom to draw any conclusion they want to believe. Secular science and unbelieving scientists do not want the truth, for then they have to rethink their careers, their ideologies, and make changes they do not want to make.

    As you can see, their sinful nature has already corrupted AI. That website and that critique have no credibility, as the owner/author cannot prove he did not manipulate AI into providing the results he published.

    One can say they used AI, but what they are not saying is how they designed their instructions.It is the typical unbeliever’s way to only tell part of the truth, so no one will challenge them.

    ….

    As we pointed out that this critique spouted only what unbelieving scientists have said for over 100 years; it is not an independent tool. AI is like all secular scientific dating systems- created by unbelievers and corrupted before they are ever used in the field. They are far from independent tools.

    They are designed to hide the truth from all and allow unbelievers to fabricate human history. That critique is less useful than toilet paper.

    According to Tee, I am lying about using AI. Why would I lie. With Tee the truth is much more delicious than a lie.

    Fact: I used Gemini with text string that said: critique https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2026/01/08/science-the-bible/ That’s it. Tee could use the scientific method to “test” my claim, but he’d rather whine and stomp his feet.

    jumping man

    Fact: My friend Ben Berwick did an AI critique using a different engine to review Tee’s entire site. The AI engine returned a similar result as mine (and can be found in the comment section here).

    End of discussion.

    Anyone want to tackle Tee’s ignorant claim, “If something can’t be proven false then it is true.” Think about the absurdity of this statement. I’m sick enough that I don’t have the wherewithal to critically respond to Tee. My first thought was “My dick is 2 feet long.” Can’t prove otherwise, so this statement is true. 🤣 Not helpful, but funny, at least to me and my pain addled juvenile mind, 🤣 So, if you are interested in critically responding to the greatest theologian and scientist of the fifteenth century, please write a guest post or leave a comment.

    Tee is an ever present reminder of how religious fundamentalism causes brain rot. It robs people of the ability to think rationally, critically, and skeptically. I’ve been there, so I understand how and why Tee thinks the way he does. That said, change is possible, but it requires Tee to admit that the only lie in this story is his rigid literalist interpretations of an errant, fallible ancient religious text.

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

    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.

  • AI Critiques Dr. David Tee’s “Science”

    dr david tee

    I recently asked an AI engine to critique a recent science article by world renowned Evangelical scientist, Dr. David Tee. Here’s what it had to say. enjoy! 😉 (This, by the way, could be a critique of many creationist arguments.)

    Critique of Science and the Bible

    The article you provided, titled “Science & the Bible” from Theology & Archaeology, argues that science is a fallible, human-driven endeavor that should be secondary to the “inerrant” word of the Bible.

    While the article is written from a theological perspective, a scientific critique focuses on its representation of the scientific method, epistemology (how we know what we know), and its use of concordism (the attempt to find modern science in ancient texts).

    1. Misunderstanding of “Theory” and “Fallibility”

    The article argues that because science is “fallible” and changes over time, it is less reliable than religious text.

    • Scientific Critique: This characterizes a core strength of science as a weakness. Science is self-correcting. The fact that theories are updated when new evidence emerges (e.g., moving from Newtonian physics to Relativity) does not mean the previous science was “wrong” in a vacuum; it means it was an incomplete model that became more precise.
    • The Error: The article implies that “change” equals “unreliability,” whereas in science, the refusal to change in the face of evidence is what constitutes unreliability.

    2. False Equivalence of Evidence

    The author suggests that a “Biblical worldview” and a “Secular worldview” are simply two different but equal ways of looking at the same data.

    • Scientific Critique: Science relies on methodological naturalism. It requires hypotheses to be testable, falsifiable, and predictable.
    • The Error: A “Biblical worldview” as described in the article starts with a conclusion (the Bible is true) and filters data to fit it. Science starts with data and builds a conclusion. By treating “revealed truth” as a data point equal to empirical observation, the article departs from the scientific method entirely.

    3. Retroactive “Scientific Foreknowledge” (Concordism)

    The article claims the Bible contains “scientific facts” that were ahead of their time, such as the water cycle or the earth being a sphere.

    • Scientific Critique: This is often a result of exegesis bias. Many of the verses cited (like Job 26:7 or Isaiah 40:22) use poetic language that can be interpreted in multiple ways.
    • The Error: If these texts were truly “scientific,” they would provide predictive power (e.g., explaining the mechanics of evaporation rather than just mentioning clouds). Identifying “science” in the Bible after the science has already been discovered by secular means is a form of hindsight bias, not a validation of the text as a scientific document.

    4. Categorical Misclassification

    The article states, “The Bible is not a scientific book, but it does reference a variety of scientific facts.”

    • Scientific Critique: This is a rhetorical “have your cake and eat it too” strategy. By saying it’s not a science book, the author protects it from scientific scrutiny when it is demonstrably inaccurate (e.g., the order of creation in Genesis), but by claiming it contains “scientific facts,” they attempt to borrow the authority of science to bolster the text’s credibility.
    • The Error: From a scientific standpoint, an observation is only a “fact” if it can be verified independently of the source. The article asks the reader to verify the source (the Bible) using the facts, and then verify the facts using the source—a circular logic.

    Summary

    The article’s “science” is actually apologetics. It uses the language of science to argue for the supremacy of a specific religious interpretation. Scientifically, the article fails because it rejects falsifiability—the author explicitly states that the Bible cannot be wrong, which means no amount of evidence could ever change the conclusion. In science, if a theory cannot be proven wrong, it cannot be used to claim truth.

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

    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.

  • Is There Any Such Thing as “True Christianity”?

    true christianity

    Listen to Evangelical apologists, and you will hear them talk about “true Christianity.” In their minds, true Christianity is a set of non-negotiable theological propositions that MUST be believed for a person to be a Christian. If a person does not believe these things, he is not a Christian, regardless of what he says.

    Some Evangelicals think that their peculiar beliefs trace back to the first century church; that their beliefs and those of Jesus, Paul, and the apostles are one and the same. One Church of God in Newark, Ohio had a cornerstone on their building that showed its inception date as AD 33. Such thinking is, unfortunately, common. I knew Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) preachers who were Landmark Baptists or Baptist Briders. These preachers believed that their churches could trace their lineage all the way back to the early Christian church. Carefully examine the doctrinal statements of the various Christian sects and you will find that many of them ascribe to the notion of “true Christianity,” going so far as to assert that their sect is the “true church.”

    Is there any such things as true Christianity? No, and there never has been, not even in the first century. It is impossible to read the Bible without concluding that that Jesus and early church leaders were divided over what constituted true Christianity. Jesus, James, Peter, and Paul each had their own take on true Christianity. Who was right? How do we determine who was right? How do we determine who is right today?

    There’s no such thing as true Christianity. There’s no central repository for Christian truth. (I met more than a few Christians who believed that somewhere there was a perfect copy of the Bible. This, of course, is patently untrue.) For over 2,000 years, followers of Jesus have been making it up as they go. Isn’t it amazing that a group of Evangelicals can attend the same church, read the same Bible, listen to the same sermons, and read the same books, yet they come up with conflicting explanations of true Christianity? Why is that? Most Evangelicals believe the Bible is a supernatural book written by a supernatural God with a supernatural message just for them. Further, they believe that God lives inside of them in the person of the Holy Spirit, teaching them everything pertaining to life and godliness. If these claims are true, why is it that no two Christians believe the same thing about true Christianity?

    A better explanation suggests that every Christian shapes, molds, and fashions God, Jesus, and Christianity in their own image and that of their culture/tribe. Think of all the things that affect how we think about a matter. Do these things not affect our thinking about Christianity too? Of course they do.

    Dr. Dan McClellan explains it this way:

    Video Link

    Video Link

    Did you grow up in a church that preached “true Christianity”? Please share your thoughts and experiences in the comment section.

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

    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’s View of “Unbelievers”

    dr david tee

    When you look at the unbelieving world, they do not have a stable, secure foundation to place any of their beliefs. They have nothing objective to pin any of their hopes and dreams or lives to. The unbelievers go from one subjective ideology to another in hopes of finding a road to some sort of paradise.

    They always end up disappointed as each new ideology is as bad and corrupt, or worse than the one previous to it. The unbeliever has nothing to believe in or build upon that will provide them a stable environment.

    They also have nothing to look forward to, as all their ideologies are for this terrestrial world. Not one provides them any real extraterrestrial comfort or life. This is why so many of them have adopted the concept that at death, existence stops.

    The unbeliever builds hopelessness into their lives by rejecting the one foundation that provides them with everything they are looking for. Their lives do not make any sense, as many of the unbelievers try to kill Christians who provide that one foundation.

    ….

    The push to believe science over anything else is a deception. Science cannot save people’s souls or bring them to heaven. It doesn’t matter how often scientific thought or theories change; this fact disqualifies it as being an authority or an alternative to true Christian belief.

    Science has nothing to offer anyone outside of knowledge of how the world works. People who take science over the Bible are wasting their lives pursuing something that is a dead-end road.

    The same applies to all the cults and false religions out there. They do not have the truth to help anyone get to any form of paradise. They only contain enough truth to deceive people into a false sense of security and hope.

    — Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, TheologyArcheology, They Do Not Have a Stable Foundation

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

    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 Evangelicals Quote Bible Verses to Unbelievers

    power of the bible

    As unbelievers, we reject the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. We reject the notion that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. To most unbelievers, the Bible is just one book among many, no different from countless other literary works.

    Why, then, do Evangelicals think quoting Bible verses to unbelievers will somehow, some way lead them to faith in Jesus Christ? Think of all the commenters over the years who have flooded the comment section of this blog with cut and paste blocks of Scripture, thinking that these words will have some sort of magical power over us. Why do they do this?

    Evangelicals are taught that the Bible is a supernatural text with a supernatural message given to them by a supernatural God. It is different from all other books because its words are straight from the mouth of God. Remember, God only wrote one book — the B-I-B-L-E. Preferably, the KJV.

    Sunday after Sunday, Evangelical preachers indoctrinate and condition congregants in beliefs that prop up the false notion that the Bible is an inerrant, infallible text; that when they read or hear the Bible preached, they are hearing the very words of God. So, in their minds, it stands to reason then, that Evangelicals think the words of the Bible have supernatural power. And when they find out the words don’t have the desired salvific effect with the unwashed, uncircumcised Philistines of the world, who do they blame? Themselves? The Bible? Nope, blame rests solely on unbelievers. We are to blame for not hearing what Paul said we cannot hear or understand.

    Just remember, unbelievers. It is always our fault.

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

    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.

  • Did You Know Jesus is a Houston Texans Fan?

    jesus is a texans fan 2

    The light is shining bright on the Texans, but that light is really reflective of our guys’ belief in … our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. That’s what has driven our team, and I’m so proud of our guys and thankful to the Lord for allowing us to allow our lights to shine through Him. All praise and honor goes to Him.

    — DeMeco Ryans, Head Coach of the Houston Texans

    In a 2020 interview, Ryans said:

    Why are we in the position that we’re in? Why are we able to do what we do. That’s by God blessing us with this awesome opportunity to reach back and teach these young men, help these young men, but we have to stay grounded in the Word. We can get caught up in our work, a lot of long hours, a lot of long days, but you can’t forget what sustains us, and that’s Jesus Christ.

    Last year, Texan quarterback CJ Stroud stated:

    It’s been a blessing. It’s been a heck of a year. I thank God I can just go another week with my teammates. This is like a dream come true as a reminder of how close we are as a team. I think definitely God is at the forefront of our minds, and we play for an audience of One. Even when everything is going crazy, you can lock hands and have patience. I’m blessed enough to have a leader like DeMeco who is open with his faith.

    The Texans play for an audience of one? Really? Think about all the pressing needs in the world today, yet the sovereign God of the Bible takes time out of his busy day as the manager of the universe to watch and control NFL games. Misplaced priorities, anyone? And what about the Christian players on losing teams? Doesn’t God care about them too? Can’t God root for the Packers and the Bears or the Steelers and the Ravens at the same time? How does God decide which teams get a W on any given Sunday?

    Ryans would have us believe that Texan players are sustained by Jesus alone. No one seriously believes this. If they did, there would be no need for training or physical therapy. Jesus will sustain us! See ya next Sunday! That’s not how it works. Players spend virtually every waking hour preparing for the next game. Coaches do the same. It seems to me that the football enterprise is long on human instrumentality and short on Jesus. Lots of non-Christian players thrive in the NFL. No need of Jesus. They know where their strength and ability come from.

    When the Texans lose their next game, what will Ryans and Stroud say then? Will Jesus be praised for the L? Of course not. He’s a winner, not like those losers, the Houston Texans. Meanwhile, children starve, a lunatic sits in the White House and Jesus is where? In a suite at an NFL game, busy rooting for his “chosen” team.

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

    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.

  • “Notable Christians Who Died” Posts Are an Affront to God!

    preacher prostrate before Jesus

    I follow a number of Evangelical blogs, websites, and podcasts. Recently, several sites had articles detailing the “notable” Christians who died. You know the big-name, big-shot Christians who died in 2025. When these alleged giants of the faith died, both secular and religious sites ran articles detailing their greatness.

    As I read these articles, I couldn’t help wonder if God was upset over these dead Christians getting all the praise and glory for his works. Remember, Christians are helpless and hopeless without Jesus; that in and of themselves they can do no good thing. Jesus himself said, “Without me ye can do nothing.” Paul later added that humans cannot even move or breathe apart from God. Thus, Christianity has historically taught that all praise, honor, and glory belong to Jesus alone. We humans are mere tools used by God to advance his kingdom. It is God who deserves a pat on the back when we do good works, not us.

    Watching a sporting event or music star interview and you will hear countless people give all the praise and glory for their exploits to Jesus. Without him, they couldn’t sing, run, punt, pass, or shoot. Forget genetics. Forget physical dispositions. Forget training and conditioning. Forget coaching. Forget parental involvement. The next time you watch gifted athletes ply their trade, remember it is all because of Jesus. In the grand scheme of things, the human is just a bit player in God’s cosmic play. When the annals of human history are written, they will only contain three words:God Did It! (With a footnote that says: Except the bad stuff. That’s on you, buddy.)

    With these things in mind, it seems clear that praising the works of these “notable Christians” is an affront to God. Why? Because praising their works robs God of praise and honor that only belongs to him. However, as I read these articles about notable Christians who died in 2025, it seemed that a lot of these dead Christians were bigger than life; dare I say, bigger than Jesus?

    Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

    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.