Menu Close

Black Collar Crime: Southern Baptist Youth Pastor Austin Perkins Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison for Child Molestation

austin perkins

The Black Collar Crime Series relies on public news stories and publicly available information for its content. If any incorrect information is found, please contact Bruce Gerencser. Nothing in this post should be construed as an accusation of guilt. Those accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty.

Austin Perkins, a youth pastor at Grace Fellowship Baptist Church in Cave Spring, Georgia, was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for child molestation and possession of child pornography. Grace Fellowship is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.

The Rome News-Gazette reports:

A former youth minister of a Floyd County church was sentenced Thursday to serve 15 years in prison on child molestation and possession of child pornography charges, alongside another 25 years on probation.

When Austin Wray Perkins was arrested on March 9, 2022, as part of a sting targeting child pornography, police discovered he was also the guardian of a minor living at his home who he sexually victimized.

According to a police statement at the time of his arrest, Perkins took the child — who had no family or support — into his home and molested him. During that time, Perkins was also a youth minister at Grace Fellowship Baptist Church.

Perkins, 27, pleaded guilty to one count of felony child molestation and one count of felony sexual exploitation of children — in a non-negotiated plea in Floyd County Superior Court — in September.

At the time of the arrest, Floyd County Assistant District Attorney Leah Mayo said police discovered what they thought were 20 or so images containing child pornography. There were hundreds more.

“After officers were able to get into both phones completely, we’re talking about hundreds of images,” Mayo told Floyd County Superior Court Chief Judge John “Jack” Niedrach. “There are some images of infants under a year old (being subjected to sexual abuse). It’s a horrific, extensive, extremely exploitative and disturbing collection of child pornography.”

Mayo also read statements from the victim and his now reunited father.

“I know my son will never be the same from the hell Austin has put him through,” the father wrote. He described how Perkins threatened and manipulated his son in order to abuse him.

During the sentencing, prosecutors and Perkins’ attorney Radford Bunker referred to the results of a psychosexual evaluation taken prior to his sentencing.

Bunker described incidents in his client’s childhood when he’d been victimized sexually and talked about a confusion in Perkins’ mental processes because of that abuse.

“This report shows that terrible things have happened to him, but he is treatable,” Bunker said. “It’s because of what happened to him that he is not able to see these things clearly and correctly.”

The attorney referred to a finding in the evaluation that Perkins has a treatable condition and asked the judge to prescribe treatment for Perkins when he’s released from prison.

Members of Perkins’ family and friends admitted that Perkins had done bad things, but asked that the judge give leniency to a person they described as intelligent, caring, and hardworking. He did not speak during the sentencing.

“I think, in his mind, he’s just thinking he was doing the right thing by helping the victim,” Perkins’ mother, Kelly Bishop, said. “He thought that because (the victim) didn’t have a family that did for (the victim), that he would do for (the victim)…”

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Black Collar Crime: Evangelical Jordan Shortridge Accused of Stealing $470,000 From Grandfather’s Church

jordan-shortridge

The Black Collar Crime Series relies on public news stories and publicly available information for its content. If any incorrect information is found, please contact Bruce Gerencser. Nothing in this post should be construed as an accusation of guilt. Those accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty.

Jordan Shortridge, the grandson of Daniel Shortridge, pastor of Dallas Church of God in Dallas, North Carolina, stands accused of stealing $470.000 from the church. Shortridge was active in the church, playing the drums and working in the AV department.

The Gaston Gazette reports:

The grandson of a Dallas pastor has been arrested and accused of embezzling thousands of dollars from the church.

Jordan Shortridge, the grandson of Rev. Daniel Shortridge, came under investigation after the accounting department at Dallas Church of God found that more than $470,000 had been used for purchases that were not related to the church, according to a press release.

The accounting department reportedly began to find discrepancies in the church funds as far back as 2021. Their bank conducted an audit and found withdrawals and payments made through PayPal, according to the release.

The church reported the discrepancies to the police in July 2023. Shortridge was charged with felony larceny Friday.

Shortage [sic], 28, of Crouse, posted bond within hours and was released.

Dallas Police Chief Robert Walls declined to say how exactly Shortridge would have accessed the funds, but said that he was involved with the church.

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

How Evangelical Christianity Attempts to Supplant Family Relationships

family of god

Many Evangelical preachers promote the idea that the bond Christian church members have with one another is far better than the one people have with blood relatives. Blood is thicker than water, the old saying goes, but not in Evangelical churches. The water of baptism unites fellow believers together into what is called “the family of God.” In this sense, water is indeed thicker than blood. One of the selling points of Evangelicalism is that it provides people with unique relationships with not only God, but also their fellow members.

Years ago, a popular song among Evangelicals was The Family of God by Bill and Gloria Gaither:

For I’m part of the family,
the family of God.

You will notice we say “brother
and sister” ’round here-
It’s because we’re a family
and these folks are so near;
When one has a heartache
we all share the tears,
And rejoice in each victory
In this family so dear.

I’m so glad I’m a part
of the family of God-
I’ve been washed in the fountain,
cleansed by His blood!
Joint heirs with Jesus
as we travel this sod,
For I’m part of the family,
the family of God.

From the door of an orphanage
to the house of the King-
No longer an outcast,
a new song I sing;
From rags unto riches,
from the weak to the strong,
I’m not worthy to be here,
But, praise God, I belong!

I’m so glad I’m a part
of the family of God-
I’ve been washed in the fountain,
cleansed by His blood!
Joint heirs with Jesus
as we travel this sod,
For I’m part of the family,
the family of God.

Yes I’m part of the family,
the family of God.

You will notice we say “brother and sister” around here, the Gaither’s wrote, and we greet one another this way because “we’re a family.” Gaither goes on to say that when brothers and sisters have troubles, the church is there for them, just as the church rejoices with them when they have victories. From the outside, the notion of church members all being one, big happy family is appealing. One of the common things ex-Evangelicals miss is the social connection and camaraderie they had with fellow Christians. And not just during Sunday services either. The churches I pastored over the years had frequent potluck dinners, dinner on the grounds, and banquets, along with social events that drew congregants together.

If you come from a dysfunctional family, as I did, it is not hard to see how the church could supplant your blood relatives. “I don’t need my parents, siblings, and extended family! I have my church family. They love me unconditionally and are always there for me!” Or so the thinking goes anyway. What ex-Evangelicals learned is that, unlike blood relatives to whom you are related no matter what, the “family of God” has certain requirements for membership and participation. Don’t play by the rules, don’t have the right beliefs, or don’t march in lock-step with the preacher’s edicts, and you will find that “unconditional” love is anything but, and the people who promised to always be there for you are nowhere to be found.

Those of us who left Evangelicalism and became atheists/agnostics quickly found out that the “family of God” was not what we thought it was; that the people we called friends distanced themselves from us or turned on us. I was part of the “family of God” for fifty years. I had scores of intimate relationships with fellow Christians and colleagues in the ministry. I naively believed that if I were honest about my loss of faith these people would at least “understand” and continue to be friendly towards me and my family. Instead, once word of my unbelief became common knowledge (Please see Dear Family, Friends, and Former Parishioners), it was not long before my church family turned on me. I received countless emails and letters from former congregants and colleagues in the ministry decrying my atheism and unbelief. The very people who loved and respected me set me on fire with angry, hateful words. I wish I had saved their correspondence, but their words hurt me to such a degree that I threw them away after receiving them.

One letter, in particular, came from a couple I had known since I was a teen. Their older boys were my age. I spent countless hours at their home hanging out. They were instrumental in me becoming the pastor of Olive Branch Christian Union Church in 1995. We were close, to say the least. In early 2009, I sent out Dear Family, Friends, and Former Parishioners. After, receiving my letter, this couple sent me a scathing letter that, in essence, told me I was possessed of the Devil. Their words were beyond hurtful. Several months later, I received another letter from them — an apology of sorts. Unfortunately, the damage was already done. I tend to believe that people say what they mean the first time, and usually apologies are just them feeling guilty about being assholes.

What my post-Jesus experiences taught me is that the beliefs I had about the “family of God” were largely untrue; that membership in the family required fidelity to certain beliefs and practices. From a sociological perspective, I understand why this is so. All of us are drawn into relationships with people who have similar beliefs, experiences, hobbies, and the like. As social creatures, we like to hang out with like-minded people. When I divorced Jesus, I broke the bond I had with congregants and colleagues. Fine, but you’d think that, at the very least, they would treat me with love, kindness, and respect, if for no other reason than the possibility that my loss of faith was temporary. Instead, they burned our relationships to the ground. “No Jesus? Rot in Hell,” their sentiments seemed, at the time. My best friend so savaged me that I am not sure I have emotionally recovered to this day. When he first emailed me, I couldn’t believe how nasty he was. I hadn’t heard from him in several years. I replied, “Really? How about asking how I am doing?” We traded several emails after that, but it was clear, at least to me, that all that we had shared together over the years mattered not to him. All that mattered was fealty to Jesus and the Bible.

I was fifty years old when I left Christianity; when I lost a lifetime of friendships and social connections. This, I suppose, was the price I paid for being open and honest. If I were to repudiate atheism and swear allegiance to Jesus again, I have no doubt that I would regain many of these lost relationships. That’s not going to happen. It’s too late, age-wise, for me to build new social connections and friendships. Sure, I have a few heathen friends and I am grateful for the relationships I have through this blog. Maybe, if I live long enough, I will write a song called The Family of Reason.  Deconversion has forced me to focus on the family that really matters: Polly, my children, grandchildren, and my siblings. Contrary to what I believed for fifty years, blood really is thicker than water.

Please share your experiences with the “family of God,” both as a Christian and as an ex-believer, in the comment section. Do you still have close friends from your church days? If not, what have you done, if anything, to build relationships with like-minded unbelievers?

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Fraternal Organizations Don’t Want Unbelievers as Members

god

The United States is becoming increasingly non-Christian. Countless stories have been written about the rise of the NONES — people who have no religious affiliation. Add to this number atheists, agnostics, humanists, practitioners of earth-based religions, and people generally indifferent towards religion, and it seems, at least numerically, that the United States is well on its way to a secular or non-Christian majority. Worse yet for religionists is the fact that many people who claim to “believe” rarely attend church. Take the Southern Baptist Convention — the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. On any given Sunday, two-thirds of Southern Baptists are somewhere other than the churches they call home. And Roman Catholics? Most American Catholics attend mass occasionally, often only on major religious holidays. It seems, at least to me, that there is little difference between Christians and atheists these days. Both are sitting home on Sundays, and both pay little attention to matters of faith.

I have had some thoughts about joining a local fraternal organization. There are three main fraternal organizations in rural northwest Ohio: the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (Defiance Lodge #147), Loyal Order of Moose (Bryan Lodge 1064 and Defiance Lodge 2094), and the Fraternal Order of Eagles (Defiance FOE Aerie 372, Bryan FOE 2233). I know people who belong to each of these groups. My grandmother, the late Jeanette Rausch, was a member of the Bryan Moose for decades. As a child, she would take me and my siblings to holiday events at the Moose. All I remember about these events is that I came away with lots of candy. Well, that and Grandma spending a lot of time at the bar.

Not knowing how one becomes a member of one of these fraternal organizations, I consulted God — also known as Google — to see what was required to become a member. I quickly learned that atheists, agnostics, and humanists are not eligible to become members. That’s right, in a day of increasing religious indifference and secularism, the Moose, Elks, and Eagles require members to believe in God.

elks lodge

The Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks website states the following requirements for prospective new members:

The Order is a non-political, non-sectarian and strictly American fraternity. Proposal for membership in the Order is only by invitation of a member in good standing. To be accepted as a member, one must be an American citizen, believe in God, be of good moral character and be at least 21 years old.

moose lodge

According to reference.com, to become a member of The Loyal Order of Moose you must meet the following requirements:

To qualify for membership in the Moose Lodge, a registered member must sponsor you. In addition, you must meet the basic requirements and some background qualifications provided in the membership charter.

To qualify for membership, you must be at least 21 years old and be of unquestionable moral conduct. Regardless of religious denomination, you must profess belief in a supreme being. After expulsion from one lodge, you must be granted a special dispensation to join another; otherwise, you do not qualify.

The Moose Lodge denies membership for individuals who are members of subversive groups or terrorist organizations. In addition, you do not qualify if you are a sex offender or a felon.

fraternal order of eagles

Finally, to become a member of the Fraternal Order of Eagles, a prospect must meet the following membership requirements:

To be eligible for membership in the Fraternal Order of Eagles, you must be a citizen of the United States or Canada over the age of 18 who believes in God.

You must be sponsored by two members of a Fraternal Order of Eagles Aerie or Auxiliary. The Eagle member who proposes you for membership must obtain a membership application from the Aerie or Auxiliary secretary. Fill out the application for membership and submit the completed application to the Aerie or Auxiliary secretary.

Your application will be read at a regular Aerie/Auxiliary meeting and you will be interviewed by the local membership committee. After the interview is concluded, the committee will report to the Aerie/Auxiliary concerning their recommendation of your membership.

When the vote is concluded, you will be notified and asked to present yourself for the Fraternal Order of Eagles Initiation Ritual. The Ritual is a set of rules by which Eagles are to conduct themselves not only in the confines of the Aerie, but in life in general. It’s one of the most outstanding models for living a good and useful life. It was designed to teach candidates for membership the highest standards of human conduct expected of us. (From the Medina, Ohio FOE website)

I suspect these fraternal organizations need new members, especially younger members. I also suspect waiving the “belief in God’ requirement would offend older Christian members, but doing so might be the only way to attract younger prospective members. Paying attention to changing demographics is crucial if membership groups — be they fraternal organizations, service clubs, or churches — expect to thrive in the twenty-first century. An unwillingness to adapt to societal change is a sure path to decline and death. The answer is not for atheists/agnostics/humanists to start their own fraternal groups. We need less fragmentation, not more. The Moose, Elks, and Eagles need to rethink who it is they want for members. While I can’t confess belief in God, I can say that I am a moral, ethical man. Surely, that should be enough for any of us to share a beer or join together to help our local communities.

Are you a member of a fraternal organization? Are you an atheist or a non-Christian? Were you aware that fraternal groups require members to believe in God? Please share your thoughts and experiences in the comment section.

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Who Wrote the Bible?

god said it

By Dr. Philip Almond, Professor University of Queensland, Used by Permission from The Conversation

The Bible tells an overall story about the history of the world: creation, fall, redemption, and God’s Last Judgement of the living and the dead.

The Old Testament (which dates to 300 BCE) begins with the creation of the world and of Adam and Eve, their disobedience to God, and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

The New Testament recounts the redemption of humanity brought about by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. It finishes in the book of Revelation, with the end of history and God’s Last Judgement.

During the first 400 years of Christianity, the church took its time deciding on the New Testament. Finally, in 367 CE, authorities confirmed the 27 books that make it up.

But who wrote the Bible?

Broadly, there are four different theories:

God Wrote the Bible: Fundamentalist View

All Christians agree the Bible is authoritative. Many see it as the divinely revealed word of God. But there are significant disagreements about what this means.

At its most extreme, this is taken to mean the words themselves are divinely inspired – God dictated the Bible to its writers, who were merely God’s musicians playing a divine composition.

As early as the second century, the Christian philosopher Justin Martyr saw it as only necessary for holy men

to submit their purified persons to the direction of the Holy Spirit, so that this divine plectrum from Heaven, as it were, by using them as a harp or lyre, might reveal to us divine and celestial truths.

In other words, God dictated the words to the Biblical secretaries, who wrote everything down exactly.

This view continued with the medieval Catholic church. Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas put it simply in the 13th century: “the author of Holy Writ is God”. He qualified this by saying each word in Holy Writ could have several senses – in other words, it could be variously interpreted.

The religious reform movement known as Protestantism swept through Europe in the 1500s. A new group of churches formed alongside the existing Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions of Christianity.

Protestants emphasized the authority of “scripture alone” (“sola scriptura”), meaning the text of the Bible was the supreme authority over the church. This gave greater emphasis to the scriptures and the idea of “divine dictation” got more support.

So, for example, Protestant reformer John Calvin declared:

[we] are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestion, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare.

“Divine dictation” was linked to the idea that the Bible was without error (inerrant) – because the words were dictated by God.

Generally, over the first 1,700 years of Christian history, this was assumed, if not argued for. But from the 18th century on, both history and science began to cast doubts on the truth of the Bible. And what had once been taken as fact came to be treated as myth and legend.

The impossibility of any sort of error in the scriptures became a doctrine at the forefront of the 20th-century movement known as fundamentalism. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in 1978 declared:

Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.

God Inspired the Writers: Conservative View

An alternative to the theory of divine dictation is the divine inspiration of the writers. Here, both God and humans collaborated in the writing of the Bible. So, not the words, but the authors were inspired by God.

There are two versions of this theory, dating from the Reformation. The conservative version, favored by Protestantism, was: though the Bible was written by humans, God was a dominant force in the partnership.

Protestants believed the sovereignty of God overruled human freedom. But even the Reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin, recognized variation within the Biblical stories could be put down to human agency.

Catholics were more inclined to recognize human freedom above divine sovereignty. Some flirted with the idea human authorship was at play, with God only intervening to prevent mistakes.

For example, in 1625, Jacques Bonfrère said the Holy Spirit acts: “not by dictating or inbreathing, but as one keeps an eye on another while he is writing, to keep him from slipping into errors”.

In the early 1620s, the Archbishop of Split, Marcantonio de Dominis, went a little further. He distinguished between those parts of the Bible revealed to the writers by God and those that weren’t. In the latter, he believed, errors could occur.

His view was supported some 200 years later by John Henry Newman, who led the Oxford movement in the Church of England and later became a cardinal (and then a saint) in the Roman Catholic Church.

Newman argued the divinely inspired books of the Bible were interspersed with human additions. In other words, the Bible was inspired in matters of faith and morals – but not, say, in matters of science and history. It was hard, at times, to distinguish this conservative view from “divine dictation”.

God Inspired the Writers: Liberal View

During the 19th century, in both Protestant and Catholic circles, the conservative theory was being overtaken by a more liberal view. The writers of the Bible were inspired by God, but they were “children of their time”, their writings determined by the cultural contexts in which they wrote.

This view, while recognizing the special status of the Bible for Christians, allowed for errors. For example, in 1860 the Anglican theologian Benjamin Jowett declared: “any true doctrine of inspiration must conform to all well-ascertained facts of history or of science”.

For Jowett, to hold to the truth of the Bible against the discoveries of science or history was to do a disservice to religion. At times, though, it’s difficult to tell the difference between a liberal view of inspiration and there being no meaning to “inspiration” at all.

In 1868, a conservative Catholic church pushed back against the more liberal view, declaring God’s direct authorship of the Bible. The Council of the Church known as Vatican 1 declared both the Old and New Testaments were: “written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author.”

People Wrote the Bible, With No Divine Help

Within the most liberal Christian circles, by the end of the 19th century, the notion of the Bible as “divinely inspired” had lost any meaning.

Liberal Christians could join their secular colleagues in ignoring questions of the Bible’s historical or scientific accuracy or infallibility. The idea of the Bible as a human production was now accepted. And the question of who wrote it was now comparable to questions about the authorship of any other ancient text.

The simple answer to “who wrote the Bible?” became: the authors named in the Bible (for example, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – the authors of the four Gospels). But the idea of the Bible’s authorship is complex and problematic. (So are historical studies of ancient texts more generally.)This is partly because it’s hard to identify particular authors.

The content of the 39 books of the Old Testament is the same as the 24 books of the Jewish Hebrew Bible. Within modern Old Testament studies, it’s now generally accepted that the books were not the production of a single author, but the result of long and changing histories of the stories’ transmission.

The question of authorship, then, is not about an individual writer, but multiple authors, editors, scribes, and redactors – along with multiple different versions of the texts.

It’s much the same with the New Testament. While 13 Letters are attributed to Saint Paul, there are doubts about his authorship of seven of them (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews). There are also disputes over the traditional authorship of a number of the remaining Letters. The book of Revelation was traditionally ascribed to Jesus’s disciple John. But it is now generally agreed he was not its author.

Traditionally, the authors of the four Gospels were thought to be the apostles Matthew and John, Mark (the companion of Jesus’s disciple Peter), and Luke (the companion of Paul, who spread Christianity to the Greco-Roman world in the first century). But the anonymously written Gospels weren’t attributed to these figures until the second and third centuries.

The dates of the Gospels’ creation also suggest they were not written by eyewitnesses to Jesus’s life. The earliest Gospel, Mark (65-70 CE) was written some 30 years after the death of Jesus (from 29-34 CE). The last Gospel, John (90-100 CE) was written some 60-90 years after the death of Jesus.

It’s clear the author of the Gospel of Mark drew on traditions circulating in the early church about the life and teaching of Jesus and brought them together in the form of ancient biography.

In turn, the Gospel of Mark served as the principal source for the authors of Matthew and Luke. Each of these authors had access to a common source (known as “Q”) of the sayings of Jesus, along with material unique to each of them.

In short, there were many (unknown) authors of the Gospels.

Interestingly, another group of texts, known as the Apocrypha, were written during the time between the Old and New Testaments (400 BCE to the first century CE). The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Christian traditions consider them part of the Bible, but Protestant churches don’t consider them authoritative.

Divine or Human: Why Does It Matter?

The question of who wrote the Bible matters because the Christian quarter of the world’s population believe the Bible is not merely a human production.

Divinely inspired, it has a transcendent significance. As such, it provides for Christians an ultimate understanding of how the world is, what history means, and how human life should be lived.

It matters because the Biblical worldview is the hidden (and often not-so-hidden) cause of economic, social, and personal practices. It remains, as it has always been, a major source of both peace and conflict.

It matters, too, because the Bible remains the most important collection of books in Western civilization. Regardless of our religious beliefs, it has formed, informed, and shaped all of us – whether consciously or unconsciously, for good or ill.

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Short Stories: The Old Man and the Window

bruce-gerencser-santa-claus

The old man restlessly flops, twists, and turns in his sleep, repeatedly awakened by nightly calls to empty his bladder and lessen the pain in his legs and spine.

In the distance, he hears the noise tires make as first-shift factory workers and other laborers make their way to their places of employment.

As the old man nears the door of the bedroom, he stops, turns, and pulls back the curtain on the window.

The old man and the window know each other well. He has stood at this window thousands of times, perusing the village street — a main two-lane highway running north to southeast through Defiance County.

The old man surveys the early morning landscape. He glances up at the yellow streetlight giving off its glow. The light reflects off a light snow that is falling.

The old man glances at the car sitting in his driveway — a 2020 Ford Edge — covered with a skiff of snow.

To the south and west, the old man notices the lights are on at what he calls the “party house.” Young adults live there, though they are rarely seen except for when they throw a party. Then, the house is pulsating with music so loud that even the deaf old man hears the noise. Voices, laughter, and drunken revelry join the music, singing a chorus of freedom. But on this morning, the house is quiet.

The house on the corner shows signs of life. The old man notices his young neighbor’s minivan is running, the heater warming its cabin before the neighbor leaves for work. The right flasher is flashing, likely having been accidentally activated when the neighbor started the van.

Farther to the west, the old man sees the lighted sign for the local bar and restaurant. Cars are parked along the road, likely farmers meeting at the restaurant to eat breakfast and catch up on the latest gossip

Far in the distance, the old man sees the sign for the local gas station and convenience store. Nearby hangs the town’s one unnecessary traffic light.

The old man sees all of these things in seconds.

He wonders, “How many more times will I look out this window before I die?”

He knows the answer, “not many.” There will come a day when life will continue coursing through the streets of Ney, but without the old man in the window.

All he knows is that today is not that day.

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

It Only Took One Drop of Jesus’ Blood to Save Us

blood of jesus

Several years ago, I listened to a southern gospel song by the Mark Trammel Quartet titled, One Drop of Blood. The premise of the song is this: it only took one drop of blood to save our souls.

Video Link

Ray Boltz, a contemporary Christian artist, also sang a song titled, One Drop of Blood.

Video Link

The premise of Boltz’ song is the same: it only takes one drop of blood to save us from our sin (and defeat Satan). Is this notion of human salvation only requiring one drop of blood theologically correct? Was all that was required of Jesus the equivalent of a blood glucose level test finger stick? Why all the savagery and violence if all that was required was a boo-boo on Jesus’ finger?

Lurking behind the “one drop of blood” idea is the belief that Jesus’ blood was magical, unlike human blood. This idea was popularized years ago by Fundamentalist radio preacher M.R. DeHann in the book, The Chemistry of the Blood. DeHaan wrote:

It is not Eve’s blood which flows in the veins of mankind but ADAMS. That is why it is ADAM’s sin and not Eve’s which all men inherit. Sin is in the blood, and transmitted in the blood of man and in the flesh. Since the LIFE is in the blood according to the Scriptures, and the wages of sin was death, sin affected the blood of Adam and caused him to die. Because sin is a disease of the blood, it can be cured by the application of sinless blood, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. As the first Adam’s sin corrupted the blood of the entire human family, so the pure sinless blood of the last Adam makes atonement for the sin of the world. “For without shedding of blood is no remission . . .” “It is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” It was not  Eve’s sin which affect us although Eve sinned before Adam did. It was the SIN of ADAM which brought death upon the whole race because it is ADAMS blood that transmits original sin and it is for this reason we are not called the SEED OF THE WOMAN but we are ADAM’S SEED. ONLY  Jesus is called the Seed of the woman, because He was born of a woman without one drop of human blood in His veins, and thereby could avoid the sin of Adam which is only transmitted through the blood which the male contributes to his offspring. Jesus could have a human body, but one drop of Adam’s blood would have made Him a sinner just as you and I. There was then only one remedy for SIN and that was sinless blood and only one could supply this, even the sinless Son of God.

….

The blood of the Lord Jesus is sinless blood, and since it is sinless, it is incorruptible, for sin brought corruption, and where no sin is there is no corruption. In our next message, we shall point out how the blood which flowed in Jesus’ body was sinless and how He escaped having one single drop of Adam’s human blood within Him. Every drop of blood which flowed in Jesus’ body is still in existence just as fresh as it was when it flowed from His wounded brow and hands and feet and side. The blood that flowed from His unbroken skin in Gethsemane, the blood that was smeared about His back as the cruel, weighted thongs cut through His flesh as the flagellator scourged Him, the blood that oozed out under the thorny crown and flowed from His hands, His head, His feet was never destroyed for it was incorruptible blood.

….

Although the body of the Lord Jesus Christ lay in the tomb in death for three days and three nights, no corruption had set in for that body contained incorruptible blood. Lazarus being dead only one day more was said by his sister to be STINKING with corruption, but this one saw no corruption because the only cause of corruption, SINFUL BLOOD, was absent from His flesh. That blood, every drop of it, is still in existence.

….

After Christ had made the atonement, He arose from the tomb, and then as the eternal High Priest, ascended into heaven to present the blood in the Holy of Holies where God dwells, and that blood is there today pleading for us and prevailing for us. The priest in the Tabernacle never spoke a word. All he did was PRESENT THE blood, and that was enough. MAYBE there is a golden chalice in heaven where every drop of that precious blood is still in existence, just as pure, just as potent, just as fresh as two thousand years ago.

….

How wonderfully God prepared for the virgin birth of His Son. When He created woman He made her so that no blood would be able to pass from her to her offspring. That blood is the result of the male. Since Adam was the federal head of the race, it is HIS BLOOD which transmits Adam’s Sin. In order to produce a sinless man and yet be the son of Adam, God must provide a way whereby that man would have a human body derived from Adam but have not a drop of Adam’s sinful blood. Right here is the scientific biological reason for the sinlessness of the Man Christ Jesus. Some have tried to answer the question, “How could He be sinless and yet born of a woman?” by making Mary the “Immaculate Virgin.” That, however, does not answer the question of how JESUS was sinless since it is through the male that the bloodline runs.

Not only is this a scientific fact, but it is plainly taught in Scripture that Jesus partook of human flesh without Adam’s blood.

….

Conception by the Holy Ghost then was the only way the Virgin Birth could be accomplished. Mary contributed the body of Jesus and He became the “seed of David according to the flesh.” The Holy Spirit contributed the Blood of Jesus. It was sinless blood. It was Divine blood. It is Precious Blood for there has never been any other like it.

….

There is a Second and a more potent reason still. The blood was God’s only purchase price of redemption. When man sinned, something happened to his blood, for “the life . . . is in the blood.” Instead of incorruptible and, therefore, deathless blood, Adam’s blood corrupted through sin and became subject to death. To redeem this DEAD sinner, life must be again imparted. The only remedy for death is LIFE. This life is in the blood and so blood must be furnished which is sinless and incorruptible. Now none of Adam’s race could do this. For in “Adam all died.” “All have sinned and come short.” The angels could not furnish that blood for they are spirit beings and have neither flesh nor blood. There was only one, yes, ONLY ONE, who could furnish that blood, the virgin-born Son of God, with a human body, but sinless supernatural blood, inseminated by the Holy Ghost. In a previous message we showed scientifically that every drop of blood in an infant’s body is the contribution of the male parent, while the mother furnished all the flesh of that little body. Jesus’ body was of Mary; His blood was by the Holy Ghost. This sinless, supernatural blood was the only price of redemption God could accept, without violating the integrity of His holy nature. Death can only be banished by life. A blood transfusion must be performed and provided.

….

This is not one millionth as wonderful as what God did nineteen centuries ago. Then there was one Man who gave ALL His sinless blood on the Cross of Calvary. There a BLOOD BANK was opened and into that bank went the blood of the Lord Jesus. It suits every type, avails for everyone and is free to all who submit to its “transfusion” by the Holy Spirit. All you need to do is apply for it by FAITH. We must add chemicals to the blood in our blood banks to preserve it, and then it eventually deteriorates just the same, but no preservatives need be added to His Precious blood, for it is INCORRUPTIBLE and sinless. Not one drop of that blood was lost or wasted. It is INCORRUPTIBLE.

DeHaan, a medical doctor, founder of the Radio Bible Class, and co-editor of the monthly devotional guide Our Daily Bread, believed that the blood of Jesus was not human, but some sort of supernatural blood given to Jesus through Eve by the power and agency of the Holy Spirit. Got all that? I suspect that it is this thinking that lies behind the idea that our salvation only requires one drop of Jesus’ blood.

In the 1980s, John MacArthur, pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, got into a brawl with Bob Jones University and numerous Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (among others) preachers over his claim that it was Jesus’ death, and not his blood that was necessary for our redemption. Man, it was a wonderful time. I heard numerous sermons about MacArthur’s liberalism and apostasy — ironic since MacArthur remains a hardcore Fundamentalist to this day. MacArthur and his critics went back and forth for years on the matter, leading MacArthur loyalist Phil Johnson to write the following:

Does John MacArthur “deny the blood of Christ?”

….

No, it is not true, and it never has been. The allegations are ridiculous—perhaps originally based on a thoughtless misunderstanding, but now clearly fueled by a deceitful malevolence.

The controversy was originally ignited by a supposed “news” item written by Bob Jones, Jr. in the April 1986 issue of Faith For The Family (a Bob Jones University-sponsored magazine). Jones quoted some remarks MacArthur had originally made in a live Q&A session at Grace Community Church sometime in the early 1970s. MacArthur’s comments had been transcribed and published in the May 1976 issue of the Grace Church newsletter “Grace Today.” The Jones article cited the comments without any documentation, and without noting that they were from a ten-year-old source.

In the BJU article, Jones quoted MacArthur as saying, “It is not His bleeding that saved me, but His dying.” Jones then cited Hebrews 9:22 (“without shedding of blood is no remission”) and intoned, “MacArthur’s position is heresy.”

On June 13, 1986, MacArthur wrote to Bob Jones III, complaining that the magazine had taken snippets of his remarks out of context and deliberately made them seem sinister. MacArthur assured the magazine’s editors that he absolutely affirms the necessity of the shed blood of Christ for atonement and explained that the point he was trying to make in the quoted excerpt was merely that the saving efficacy of Christ’s blood is not because of some property in the blood itself, but rather because Christ had poured it out in death as a substitute for sinners.

….

Plainly, MacArthur was not denying that Christ literally shed His blood. He was not denying that the literal shedding of blood was a necessary aspect of the atonement. His only point was that the efficacy of Christ’s blood lies not in some property of the blood itself, but rather in the fact that Christ shed it in death, and such a death was the price of atonement for our sin.
Moreover, if the blood of Christ is in any sense “eternally preserved” in heaven, it would be in the glorified body of the risen Lord, not in a bowl or a vial where it is perpetually offered or literally applied to sinners in some way.

After an exchange of correspondence in which MacArthur thoroughly and carefully explained his original remarks, Jones wrote on October 16, 1986, saying, “I believe the position [MacArthur] has taken in this matter is a heretical position, and all the correspondence in the world is not going to affect my convictions on that point.”

Nonetheless, BJU officials soon began trying to downplay the controversy. They were clearly embarrassed by some of the squalid half-truths that were beginning to circulate among fundamentalists. They also now had a file of correspondence from MacArthur clarifying his position, making it clear that he was orthodox. Even Jones, Jr. declined to give any rational or biblical reasons for continuing to regard MacArthur’s view as “heresy.” But he was obstinately committed to his original verdict, and by his own admission, “all the correspondence in the world [was] not going to affect” his thoughts or public statements on the matter. Instead, BJU as an institution attempted a quiet retreat from the fray.

Look again at the point MacArthur was attempting to make in the first place: When Scripture speaks of Christ’s “blood,” the expression is normally a reference to His sacrificial atoning death, not the actual red and white corpuscles. And the vivid language in our hymns about the cleansing ability and “wonder-working power” of the blood and “a fountain filled with blood” is not meant to be taken literally. There is no magical or mystical cleansing property in the red fluid, and there is no container of blood in heaven that is somehow literally applied to sinners. Such language is meant to speak of Christ’s sacrificial atonement—just as when Paul spoke of “the preaching of the cross” he had in mind the death of Christ, not the literal wooden instrument on which the Savior died. We’re not to think a piece of wood is the point of our preaching. What happened on that cross is what is efficacious for our salvation, not some magical power in the wood itself. Similarly with the blood of Christ: it is the violent pouring out of blood in Christ’s sacrificial death that saves us, not some supernatural property of the fluid itself—just what MacArthur said in the first place.

The obvious truth of all that has escaped a few militant fundamentalists who have no clear concept of the biblical notion of blood atonement, but who revel in labeling anyone who is not part of their group a heretic. They continue to insist that MacArthur is actually denying the efficacy of Christ’s blood.

My take at the time as a young IFB preacher was that MacArthur was right: that it was the death of Jesus and not his blood that provided salvation for sinners; that yes, Jesus shedding his blood was essential to salvation, but without his death — also known as a three-day vacation — the shedding of his blood was in vain. Of course, I didn’t utter out loud or preach about my agreement with MacArthur. Doing so would have been ecclesiastical and personal suicide. (Please see I Wish Christians Would Be Honest About Jesus’ Three Day Weekend)

In a 1988 letter to his followers, MacArthur wrote:

Clearly, though Christ shed His literal blood, many references to the blood are not intended to be taken in the literal sense. A strictly literal interpretation cannot, for example, explain such passages as John 6:53-54: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

It would be equally hard to explain how physical blood is meant in Matthew 27:25 (“His blood be on us, and on our children”); Acts 5:28 (“[You] intend to bring this man’s blood upon us”); 18:6 (“Your blood be upon your own heads”); 20:26 (“I am innocent of the blood of all men”); and 1 Corinthians 10:16 (“The cup of blessing . . .is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?,” KJV).

Clearly the word blood is often used to mean more than the literal red fluid. Thus it is that when Scripture speaks of the blood of Christ, it usually means much more than just the red and white corpuscles—it encompasses His death, the sacrifice for our sins, and all that is involved in the atonement.

Trying to make literal every reference to Christ’s blood can lead to serious error. The Catholic doctrine known as transubstantiation, for example, teaches that communion wine is miraculously changed into the actual blood of Christ, and that those who partake of the elements in the mass literally fulfill the words of Jesus in John 6:54: “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Those who have attacked me seem to be espousing the same kind of mystical view of the blood that led the Catholic Church to embrace transubstantiation. They claim that the blood of Christ was never truly human. They insist on literalizing every New Testament reference to Jesus’ blood. They teach that the physical blood of Christ was somehow preserved after the crucifixion and carried to heaven, where it is now literally applied to the soul of each Christian at salvation.

We are not saved by some mystical heavenly application of Jesus’ literal blood. Nothing in Scripture indicates that the literal blood of Christ is preserved in heaven and applied to individual believers. When Scripture says we’re redeemed by the blood (1 Pet. 1:18-19), it is not speaking of a bowl of blood in heaven. It means we’re saved by Christ’s sacrificial death.

In the same way, when Paul said he gloried in the cross (Gal. 6:14), he did not mean the literal wooden beams; he was speaking of all the elements of redeeming truth. Just as the cross is an expression that includes all of Christ’s atoning work, so is the blood. It is not the actual liquid that cleanses us from our sins, but the work of redemption Christ accomplished in pouring it out.

MacArthur believed that behind the venomous attacks from Fundamentalist preachers was DeHaan’s “miracle blood” teachings found in the book The Chemistry of the Blood. IFB preachers are noted for their rabid hatred of Roman Catholicism. MacArthur does a good job of connecting the “supernatural” blood belief of DeHaan with that of Catholics and their belief in transubstantiation — where communion wine and wafer actually become the literal blood and body of Jesus. That said, MacArthur and his followers have plenty of their own absurd beliefs in connection with the blood of Jesus. While MacArthur says that many of the Biblical mentions of Jesus’ blood are metaphorical in nature, it is, last I looked, through Christ’s bloody sacrifice, death, and subsequent resurrection from the dead, that the elect (MacArthur is a Calvinist) are washed of their sins. The whole notion of original sin and our need for salvation is absurd. The squabble between MacArthur and the “miraculous blood of Jesus” crowd is just Kabuki theater. The bigger issue is that Evangelicals of all stripes continue to debase their fellow humans, demanding they submit to the teachings of an ancient blood cult lest their vengeful God torture them in Hell for eternity.

I am left wondering what Christian Mark Trammel would say to Christian Ray Boltz about “one drop of blood” saving humans from their sins. I assume Trammel, an Evangelical, believes homosexuality is a sin. Boltz, an out-and-proud gay man, does not. (Please see Evangelicals and the Gay Closet: Is Ray Boltz Still a Christian?) I wonder, “which” drop of the blood of Jesus saved whom? Is it the same miraculous blood that saved Trammel that also saved Boltz? Or does being gay disqualify someone from the application of Jesus’ blood? Must Boltz repent of his “sin” to have one drop of the blood of Jesus applied to his sin account? Or is Jesus cool and okay with LGBTQ people worshiping him? I guess we will never know since all we are left with are the ancient contradictory writings of the Bible. When it comes to the blood of Jesus, YMMV (your mileage may vary).

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Has God Taken His Hand Off of America?

christian nation

When the homosexual comes out of the closet and he is bragging about his activities, demanding not only acceptance, but endorsement, that is a nation that God is taking his hand off of. And that’s exactly who we are.

Rick Scarborough

Jesus, take the wheel
Take it from my hands
‘Cause I can’t do this on my own
I’m letting go
So give me one more chance
And save me from this road I’m on
Jesus, take the wheel

— Chorus for Jesus, Take the Wheel

If you listen to the mainstream media, you might conclude that Christian Nationalism is new; and that Donald Trump and his MAGA faithful are to blame for the rise of Christian Nationalism in Evangelical sects and churches. Mainstream media says, “Look what we found!” However, as someone who spent the first fifty years of his life in Evangelicalism, I can authoritatively say that Evangelicals have always been, to some degree or the other, (white) Christian nationalists. I can’t remember a time when the American flag and the Christian flag didn’t fly together on Evangelical church platforms or flag poles in front of church buildings.

What is new is how Evangelicals now view the separation of church and state. When I began training for the ministry in 1976, most Evangelicals believed that there was a strict, inviolable separation of church and state. Each was a separate sphere of influence; separate, but equal. God ordains both government and church, each with their own duties and obligations. I believed then, and still do today, that government and church need to stay the hell out of each other’s business. The government can and must insist churches follow building and health codes and obey the law, but outside of that, the government should leave churches alone. That’s called freedom of religion.

Many Evangelical preachers now believe that the separation of church and state is a myth; that Christians are duty-bound to capture and control the government for the glory of God. In their minds, Jesus sits on the throne as ruler and king, and the Bible (as interpreted by them, of course) is the law of the land. Their goal is a hostile takeover of the secular state.

Regardless of how Evangelicals view the separation of church and state, most of them believe that the United States is a divinely chosen and called nation — an explicitly Christian nation. In their minds, the United States, much like the Jewish state, has a unique relationship with God; that God has blessed our nation because of our commitment to Christianity. As long as we maintain this commitment, God will bless us.

This “blessing” from God is often described as “God’s hand upon us.” Much like Adam Smith’s invisible hand, many Evangelicals believe that God has ahold of the steering wheel and is guiding us where he wants to go. Culture wars (which are primarily fueled by Evangelicals, conservative Catholics, and Mormons) are God taking the wheel and steering the United States in the direction he wants us to go.

The past fifty years have not been kind to Evangelicals. American culture has largely abandoned Evangelicalism. There are more non-Christians in the United States than there are Evangelical Christians. As a result, Evangelicals lose one culture battle after another. Not having numbers sufficient to win elections, Evangelicals (who are overwhelmingly Republican) have turned to using gerrymandered legislatures to advance their cause. This approach will eventually fail as voters fix the gerrymandering problem through voter initiatives or amendments to state constitutions.

If the United States is a Christian nation, why are we becoming increasingly non-Christian or indifferent towards religious beliefs? Some Evangelical preachers, such as Rick Scarborough quoted above, think the answer to the “why” question is that God has taken his hands off the wheel; that the United States is a driverless car careening down the highway.

How do Evangelicals know that God has taken his hands off the wheel? According to Scarborough, the h-o-m-o-s-e-x-u-a-l-s are to blame. Ah yes, blame the queers. During my high school years in the 70s, I can’t remember a sermon on the evils of homosexuality or abortion. Preachers blamed hippies, draft dodgers, rock music, and short-skirted slutty women for the decline of Western civilization. Today, LGBTQ people are to blame for, well, e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g Evangelicals deem an affront to their deity. In their minds, if LGBTQ people would return to the closet (by force, if necessary), never to be seen again, then, and only then, will God put his hands back on the proverbial wheel.

Of course, even if LGBTQ people disappeared in the Gay Rapture, Evangelicals would not be satisfied. There are always culture wars to fight. There will always be threats of driverless cars speeding down the cultural highway. Evangelical preachers know that congregants need to feel threatened or persecuted for them to be motivated to attend church, and most importantly, give their tithes and offerings. Fear is good for business and keeping God’s soldiers on the battle lines.

The only hands on the cultural steering wheel are ours. May justice, equality, inclusion, and fairness always guide us.

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Dear Evangelicals: Is Hebrews 13:16 in Your Bible?

hunger

Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God. (Hebrews 13:16)

Do good, share what you have, such sacrifices are pleasing to God, the Bible says. Yet, it seems that this verse is nowhere to be found in Evangelical Bibles. Oh, the verse is there, but it is marginalized, reinterpreted, or dismissed. Many Evangelicals live as if this verse doesn’t exist. Their right-wing political beliefs and overwhelming support of Donald Trump suggest that Evangelicals aren’t that interested in nor do they care about the least of these; those different from them. Six weeks out of each year, Evangelicals will “show” they care about the poor by handing out food baskets and gift certificates, but the other forty-six weeks of the year? Evangelicals support Republican politicians and policies that materially harm the sick, poor, and marginalized. They might even operate food pantries and clothing rooms a day or two for a few hours each month. The rest of the time, the needy are expected to figure things out for themselves, even if it means letting their children go hungry or do without.

Faith without works [do good, share what you have] is dead. (James 2:17)

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Should Evangelical Preachers Who Commit Sex Crimes Be Given a Second (or Fourteenth) Chance?

god's forgiveness

Dr. David Tee, who is neither a doctor nor a Tee, has long objected to the Black Collar Crime Series. Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, has written several posts about my Black Collar Crime posts. Here’s what he said in his latest post on the subject (all spelling, grammar, and punctuation in the original):

We read BG’s response to our black collar crime series article. .He is lucky that we are not litigious in nature and do not strike back at those who not only distort what we have said but libel and slander us.

But he says things the way he does because he is a first-class narcissist who needs to be seen as the victim 100% of the time. If he wasn’t that way his posts would be written vastly different than they are being written.

He just doesn’t get it. No one needs his black collar crime series. Everyone that needs to know already knows about what some pastors do. There is no need to pile on and add misery to those who are already miserable.

Of course, if you read that series, you will find that BG does not present one legitimate solution to the problem. Instead, he spends his time attacking us as we are providing the framework for a solution to ministers going and gone bad.

We would prefer that those men not join the ministry until they allow Jesus to heal them of their problems. But since they do not postpone their answer to their calling, we must deal with the problem within the church.

The secular world does not have a solution for the problems these men face and instead of embarrassing and humiliating pastors, they should just remain silent trusting that church officials will be led by God to handle the problems correctly.

….

They [rapist, predator, abusive preachers] have sinned and come short of the glory of God, just like the rest of us. Christ is there for them as he is for all of us. We are no better even if we did not commit such worldly sins as the bible tells.

Those men are no worse than any one of us and deserve a second chance. Where would any of us be if we were not given 2nd, 3rd, or 14 chances by God?

As you may have noticed we are not saying much about BG and his black collar crime series as that rant is not worth discussing. The author of those words doesn’t speak the truth and offers no legitimate reason for it to exist.

We have said the worst we are going to say about the owner of that website and series. As all he can do is distort, libel, and slander. It is not worth getting into a war of words over.

But since it does exist, that series does provide us with a starting point to provide direction for those Christians who may have condemned and judged those men or do not know what ministry they should do.

We should not judge nor condemn those men because that is not our duty. We are not better than them and we do need to find a way to solve their problems BEFORE they get themselves into trouble.

….

We have not changed one word of what we said in the article on the black collar series. That series is a useless effort that does not help anyone.

According to Thiessen, if a preacher commits a sex crime, he is not disqualified from serving in the ministry; that God forgives them (how does he know this?) and we should too. And therein is the fundamental problem: unconditional forgiveness. No matter what a person does, God forgives him. All he needs to do, according to 1 John 1:9, is repent and ask for forgiveness. Rape a child? Repent and ask for forgiveness. Sexually assault a teenager? Repent and ask for forgiveness. Molest children? Repent and ask for forgiveness. Manipulate a woman who is under your care so she will have sex with you? Repent and ask for forgiveness. No matter how heinous the crime, all an offending preacher needs to do is shoot a prayer up to Jesus and he will immediately wipe your sin slate clean. Awesome, right? No matter what a preacher does — even two, three, or fourteen times, according to Thiessen — forgiveness is but a prayer away.

I know several Evangelical preachers who refuse to run background checks on workers in their churches. Why? Whatever these workers might have done — including sexually molesting and assaulting children — is in the past, covered by the blood of Jesus and buried in the deepest sea to be never remembered again. If God has forgiven them, so should their fellow church members.

How hard can it be to say to prospective clerics: if you commit a sex crime, you are no longer fit to serve as a pastor — period? If you are a registered sex offender, you are no longer fit to serve as a pastor — period. Sexually molesting and abusing children, sexually assaulting teenagers, and taking sexual advantage of church women (or men) should be immediately, and forever, disqualifying. That it is not in many corners of the Evangelical world is troubling, to say the least.

Sexual predators cannot be “cured.” We can have a long discussion about pedophilia, but the fact remains that predators typically re-offend; that children are NOT safe around them. Some predators should be locked up without the possibility of parole. Others should have strict limitations put on them, including forbidding them from having contact with children and other vulnerable people. Next to the finality of murder, sex crimes leave some of the deepest, most long-lasting scars on victims/survivors. Doubt me? Scores of victims/survivors read this blog. Ask them how being sexually violated has affected their lives. Untold harm, heartache, and loss, yet the Derrick Thiessens of the world ignore the harm caused by predators, choosing instead to “forgive” offenders and send them back into the ministry so they can “prey” again.

Bruce Gerencser, 66, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 45 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Connect with me on social media:

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Bruce Gerencser