The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser

Is World War III Looming on The Horizon?

Bruce Gerencser March 14, 2024 War and Peace 4 Comments

— By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, Naked Capitalism, Are We Stumbling Into World War III in Ukraine?

President Biden began his State of the Union speech with an impassioned warning that failing to pass his $61 billion dollar weapons package for Ukraine “will put Ukraine at risk, Europe at risk, the free world at risk.” But even if the president’s request were suddenly passed, it would only prolong, and dangerously escalate, the brutal war that is destroying Ukraine.

The assumption of the U.S. political elite that Biden had a viable plan to defeat Russia and restore Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders has proven to be one more triumphalist American dream that has turned into a nightmare. Ukraine has joined North Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and now Gaza, as another shattered monument to America’s military madness.

This could have been one of the shortest wars in history, if President Biden had just supported a peace and neutrality agreement negotiated in Turkey in March and April 2022 that already had champagne corks popping in Kyiv, according to Ukrainian negotiator Oleksiy Arestovych. Instead, the U.S. and NATO chose to prolong and escalate the war as a means to try to defeat and weaken Russia.

Two days before Biden’s State of the Union speech, Secretary of State Blinken announced the early retirement of Acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, one of the officials most responsible for a decade of disastrous U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

Two weeks before the announcement of Nuland’s retirement at the age of 62, she acknowledged in a talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) that the war in Ukraine had degenerated into a war of attrition that she compared to the First World War, and she admitted that the Biden administration had no Plan B for Ukraine if Congress doesn’t cough up $61 billion for more weapons.

….

The imperative must be to chart a path back from this hopeless but ever-escalating war of attrition to the negotiating table that the U.S. and Britain upended in April 2022 – or at least to new negotiations on the basis that President Zelenskyy defined on March 27, 2022, when he told his people, “Our goal is obvious: peace and the restoration of normal life in our native state as soon as possible.”

Instead, on February 26, in a very worrying sign of where NATO’s current policy is leading, French President Emmanuel Macron revealed that European leaders meeting in Paris discussed sending larger numbers of Western ground troops to Ukraine.

Macron pointed out that NATO members have steadily increased their support to levels unthinkable when the war began. He highlighted the example of Germany, which offered Ukraine only helmets and sleeping bags at the outset of the conflict and is now saying Ukraine needs more missiles and tanks. “The people that said “never ever” today were the same ones who said never ever planes, never ever long-range missiles, never ever trucks. They said all that two years ago,” Macron recalled. “We have to be humble and realize that we (have) always been six to eight months late.”

Macron implied that, as the war escalates, NATO countries may eventually have to deploy their own forces to Ukraine, and he argued that they should do so sooner rather than later if they want to recover the initiative in the war.

The mere suggestion of Western troops fighting in Ukraine elicited an outcry both within France–from extreme right National Rally to leftist La France Insoumise–and from other NATO countries. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz insisted that participants in the meeting were “unanimous” in their opposition to deploying troops. Russian officials warned that such a step would mean war between Russia and NATO.

But as Poland’s president and prime minister headed to Washington for a White House meeting on February 12, Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski told the Polish parliament that sending NATO troops into Ukraine “is not unthinkable.”

Macron’s intention may have been precisely to bring this debate out into the open and put an end to the secrecy surrounding the undeclared policy of gradual escalation toward full-scale war with Russia that the West has pursued for two years.

Macron failed to mention publicly that, under current policy, NATO forces are already deeply involved in the war. Among many lies that President Biden told in his State of the Union speech, he insisted that “there are no American soldiers at war in Ukraine.”

However, the trove of Pentagon documents leaked in March 2023 included an assessment that there were already at least 97 NATO special forces troops operating in Ukraine, including 50 British, 14 Americans and 15 French. Admiral John Kirby, the National Security Council spokesman, has also acknowledged a “small U.S. military presence” based in the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv to try to keep track of thousands of tons of U.S. weapons as they arrive in Ukraine.

But many more U.S. forces, whether inside or outside Ukraine, are involved in planning Ukrainian military operations; providing satellite intelligence; and play essential roles in the targeting of U.S. weapons. A Ukrainian official told the Washington Post that Ukrainian forces hardly ever fire HIMARS rockets without precise targeting data provided by U.S. forces in Europe.

All these U.S. and NATO forces are most definitely “at war in Ukraine.” To be at war in a country with only small numbers of “boots on the ground” has been a hallmark of 21st Century U.S. war-making, as any Navy pilot on an aircraft-carrier or drone operator in Nevada can attest. It is precisely this doctrine of “limited” and proxy war that is at risk of spinning out of control in Ukraine, unleashing the World War III that President Biden has vowed to avoid.

The United States and NATO have tried to keep the escalation of the war under control by deliberate, incremental escalation of the types of weapons they provide and cautious, covert expansion of their own involvement. This has been compared to “boiling a frog,” turning up the heat gradually to avoid any sudden move that might cross a Russian “red line” and trigger a full-scale war between NATO and Russia. But as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned in December 2022, “If things go wrong, they can go horribly wrong.”

We have long been puzzled by these glaring contradictions at the heart of U.S. and NATO policy. On one hand, we believe President Biden when he says he does not want to start World War III. On the other hand, that is what his policy of incremental escalation is inexorably leading towards.

U.S. preparations for war with Russia are already at odds with the existential imperative of containing the conflict. In November 2022, the Reed-Inhofe Amendment to the FY2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) invoked wartime emergency powers to authorize an extraordinary shopping-list of weapons like the ones sent to Ukraine, and approved billion-dollar, multi-year no-bid contracts with weapons manufacturers to buy 10 to 20 times the quantities of weapons that the United States had actually shipped to Ukraine.

Retired Marine Colonel Mark Cancian, the former chief of the Force Structure and Investment Division in the Office of Management and Budget, explained, “This isn’t replacing what we’ve given [Ukraine]. It’s building stockpiles for a major ground war [with Russia] in the future.”

So the United States is preparing to fight a major ground war with Russia, but the weapons to fight that war will take years to produce, and, with or without them, that could quickly escalate into a nuclear war. Nuland’s early retirement could be the result of Biden and his foreign policy team finally starting to come to grips with the existential dangers of the aggressive policies she championed.

….

Reuters Moscow Bureau reported that Russia spent months trying to open new negotiations with the United States in late 2023, but that, in January 2024, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan slammed that door shut with a flat refusal to negotiate over Ukraine.

The only way to find out what Russia really wants, or what it will settle for, is to return to the negotiating table. All sides have demonized each other and staked out maximalist positions, but that is what nations at war do in order to justify the sacrifices they demand of their people and their rejection of diplomatic alternatives.

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.

A Reminder that American Workers Are Just an Entry on a Spreadsheet, Easily Deleted or Replaced

Bruce Gerencser March 13, 2024 Life 24 Comments

Two weeks ago, Polly’s boss, his boss, the head of human resources, and another man showed up unannounced at Polly’s office promptly at 6:00 pm start time, to inform her and her fellow employees that they were fired; effective March 28, 2024, their department was no more due to company restructuring, and their work outsourced to a private cleaning company. Polly later found out that one department employee was retained — a man. All the fired employees were women.

Polly worked for the company for twenty-seven years, NEVER tardy or missing work. Widely praised for her work ethic, Polly learned that being loyal to her employer didn’t matter; that all her hard work didn’t matter; that her high work standards didn’t matter. Five years ago, the company outsourced some of her department. At the time, I told her that this was a warning sign; and that there would come a day when the company, for financial reasons, would outsource the rest of her department’s employees. That time has come. Polly has learned that in a capitalistic system, she is just a line entry on a spreadsheet, one that was entered twenty-seven years ago, and with a couple of keystrokes will be deleted on March 28.

The company, for years, advertised itself as the “preferred place to work.” And it was until it wasn’t. Numerous benefits have either been cut or done away with altogether. Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed, as annual deductible and maximum out-of-pocket amounts have dramatically increased, all the while pay raises were nominal, if at all, never keeping up with inflation. Nowadays, it is easy to find companies offering better wages and benefits. The company has become just another place to work.

The company is non-union. The argument back in the day was that the wages and benefits were such that a union wasn’t needed. Those days are long gone. If the company was union, Polly would still have a job. Instead, the company can fire whomever they want, and it makes perfect sense in a capitalistic system to get rid of “expensive” employees: long-tenured workers who cost more in wages and benefits. It is a hell of a lot cheaper to have a twenty-five-year-old employee compared to a sixty-six-year-old employee. Age and insurance costs can’t legally be used as continued employment criteria, but I do not doubt that Polly’s age and our family’s high insurance costs were factors in deciding to let her go.

Let me be clear, the company is having serious financial problems. I understand that it must cut millions of dollars of expenses if there is any hope for its survival. Market forces, Trump’s tariffs, runaway insurance costs, and import pressures have put the company in an untenable position. Unfortunately, when a company’s survival is at stake, there’s no time to consider what is best for individual employees and their families. The books must be balanced and, unfortunately, Polly and her fellow employees had to go.

Polly was “offered” other employment opportunities within the company. However, all but one of the jobs she is unable to physically do. This, of course, keeps the company from having to pay unemployment. Ohio is an at-will state. Employers can fire non-union workers for any reason. By offering Polly other employment, the company avoids paying unemployment if she refuses the offered jobs. Again, capitalism at its best.

Polly has several interviews over the next week. One was today. $4 an hour pay cut, with awful — might as well be non-existent — benefits. Family insurance costs? Almost $900 a month, with an annual $6,000 deductible and $14,700 maximum out of pocket. Polly has another interview on Monday with the private company that took over her department. Better wage, uncertain on insurance cost. She would still be a manager, with more employees working under her. Polly may have an opportunity to transfer to a subsidiary of the company she currently works for. This, of course, would be the best course of action, but I am not convinced that Polly can physically do the work. It might be one of those “try it and see” kinds of jobs.

The short-term effects are brutal. In two weeks, Polly will no longer work for the company. On that day, her insurance benefits will cease. This means that the surgery I have scheduled at the University of Michigan is off. We will have to start paying for our prescriptions, office visits, bloodwork, etc. We will likely be eligible for some government assistance, but Polly has to be out of work before we can apply for it. Worse, years ago the company went from a weekly to a biweekly pay schedule. At the time, they advanced employees one check to cover the pay change. Of course, it was understood that this advance would be collected when the employee was no longer employed by the company. That payday has arrived.

Polly and I have weathered many crises in our almost forty-six years of marriage. I am sixty-six and Polly is sixty-five. We are grizzled veterans in this thing called “life.” We will weather this challenge too, although we may have to make serious cuts to our finances and standard of living. One thing being poor has taught us, we know how to do without. We know how to slash the budget and live on Aldi boxed macaroni and cheese. That said, we prefer to maintain our lifestyle without interruption. Unfortunately, no one asked what we wanted — so here we are.

Polly is brokenhearted over how the company treated her. She naively believed that if she did well by the company, they would do the same for her. As someone with a lot of experience in the business world — mainly in managerial positions — I knew better; that companies, when it comes to profitability and stock share prices, don’t give a shit about their employees. All that matters is the bottom line. Yea! for capitalism. Polly has only had three jobs in our forty-six years of marriage. She has no real-world experience with how companies operate and how employees are treated. I know better, having watched numerous businesses (and churches) shit all over me and other employees. Thus, I am angry. Livid over how Polly was treated; livid over their lack of regard for her as a person; livid over how the company caused us grief with nary a thought. I am sure her boss felt bad, but what else could he do? His boss, HR, and upper management said Polly and her fellow employees had to go. His job was to facilitate what his higher-ups wanted.

Some aspects of all of this could violate employment law, but age or sex discrimination is almost impossible to prove. As someone who has hired and fired hundreds of people, I know it is easy to hide your true motivations for dismissing someone. A bigger issue is that two of our children still work for the company. Raising hell over this would likely cause them problems, and we certainly don’t want to do that. So, it is time for Polly to move on . . .

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.

The Myth of the Inerrant Originals

Bruce Gerencser March 13, 2024 Evangelicalism 10 Comments

Repost from 2015. Edited, updated, and corrected.

Most Evangelical preachers and church members believe that the Bible they carry to church on Sundays is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. If you ask them if the Bible has any errors, mistakes, or contradictions, they will likely say, absolutely not! While they know that their Bible is a translation of ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, they assume there is a perfect word line from God to the writers of the manuscripts to the translations they use.

Ask college/seminary-trained Evangelical pastors if the Bible has any errors, mistakes, or contradictions, and they will likely not say anything at first, and then will say, well, you need to understand ___________________________ (insert long explanation). They will likely tell you that modern translations are faithful or reliable, or that there are no errors, mistakes, or contradictions on any matter that is important to salvation. If you press them hard enough, they will tell you that no translation is perfect. (Remember, inerrancy demands perfection.) At about this point in the discussion, Evangelical pastors will say, I DO believe the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are inerrant (perfect, without error, mistake, or contradiction).

The next obvious question is this: so where are the original manuscripts? Well, uh, l-o-n-g pregnant pause, the original manuscripts don’t exist, the Evangelical pastor says. That’s right, the original manuscripts don’t exist. No one has ever seen or read the “original” manuscripts of the Bible. In fact, most of the extant manuscripts are dated hundreds and thousands of years after the events they record. According to Wikipedia, the oldest Old Testament manuscript (a fragment) dates back to the 2nd century BCE and the rest of the Old Testament manuscripts are dated from the 3rd century CE to the 11th century CE. Most of these manuscripts are NOT written in Hebrew.

But what about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Uneducated Evangelical church members erroneously think the Dead Sea Scrolls “prove” the Bible is the Word of God. Here is what Wikipedia says:

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of 972 texts discovered between 1946 and 1956 at Khirbet Qumran in the West Bank. They were found in caves about a mile inland from the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, from which they derive their name. The texts are of great historical, religious, and linguistic significance because they include the earliest known surviving manuscripts of works later included in the Hebrew Bible canon, along with extra-biblical manuscripts which preserve evidence of the diversity of religious thought in late Second Temple Judaism.

The texts are written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Nabataean, mostly on parchment but with some written on papyrus and bronze. The manuscripts have been dated to various ranges between 408 BCE and 318 CE…

Due to the poor condition of some of the Scrolls, not all of them have been identified. Those that have been identified can be divided into three general groups: (1) some 40% of them are copies of texts from the Hebrew Bible, (2) approximately another 30% of them are texts from the Second Temple Period and which ultimately were not canonized in the Hebrew Bible, like the Book of Enoch, Jubilees, the Book of Tobit, the Wisdom of Sirach, Psalms 152–155, etc., and (3) the remaining roughly 30% of them are sectarian manuscripts of previously unknown documents that shed light on the rules and beliefs of a particular group or groups within greater Judaism, like the Community Rule, the War Scroll, the Pesher on Habakkuk and The Rule of the Blessing.

So much for the Dead Sea Scrolls “proving” the Bible is the Word of God.

The oldest New Testament manuscripts date back to the 2nd century CE. Most of the extant manuscripts are dated from 9th century CE forward. Here is what Wikipedia says about the New Testament manuscripts:

Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian. The dates of these manuscripts range from 125 CE (the John Rylands manuscript, P⁵²; oldest copy of John fragments) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century. The vast majority of these manuscripts date after the 10th century. Although there are more manuscripts that preserve the New Testament than there are for any other ancient writing, the exact form of the text preserved in these later, numerous manuscripts may not be identical to the form of the text as it existed in antiquity. Textual scholar Bart Ehrman writes: “It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes – altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament….”

As you can see, there are no originals. Any talk of inerrant originals is just a smokescreen that hides the fact the extant manuscripts and EVERY Bible translation is errant. Any Evangelical who says that the Bible is inerrant in the originals is making a statement that cannot be proved. Every college/seminary trained-Evangelical pastor knows this, but few of them are willing to tell their congregations. Why? Why not tell church members the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Preachers fear that their congregations will lose “faith” in the Bible and that the Bible will lose its authority if they tell them the truth. They would rather lie — and they ARE lying if they don’t tell their congregation the facts about the origin, translation, and text of the Bible — than have people doubt the Bible or God.

If there are no inerrant manuscripts, then there can be no inspiration. Most Evangelicals believe that God inspired (breathed out) the Bible. If you ask Evangelical church members exactly WHAT God inspired, they will likely point to their Bible. Ask Evangelical pastors the same question and they will likely start praying for the rapture to happen immediately. Why? Because the Evangelical doctrine of inspiration is based on the notion that the Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts. Since there are no original manuscripts, and there are thousands of variations in the extant manuscripts and translations, then there is no such thing as an inspired Bible. At best, all that Evangelicals have is a flawed, errant translation of a flawed, errant, ancient manuscripts. Inerrancy and inspiration, as defined by Evangelicals, are myths, lacking any proof whatsoever.

This does not mean that the Bible has no value, but understanding that the Bible is not an inspired, inerrant text keeps a person from giving the Bible supernatural, God-like power. It may be a good book, a useful book, an inspirational book, but it is not a book that is straight from the mouth of God to our ears.

Our culture is awash with men and women who say they speak for the Christian God. What is the one belief that these speakers for God have in common? That the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. Every Sunday, Evangelical Joel Osteen, pastor of the largest church in America, leads his congregation in this:

The culture wars that continue to rage in the United States are based on the belief that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. When Evangelical culture warriors quote proof-texts from the Bible, they believe they are speaking the very words of God — in American English of course. What they are really speaking are the words of an errant, fallible text that may or may not be the words of God/Jesus/Moses/Paul/Peter/James/John — to name a few. Since the original manuscripts no longer exist, it is impossible to know if the words of the Bible are God’s words. And even if the original manuscripts did exist, how could anyone prove that they were the very words of God? Would there be an endorsement statement on the last page that said, This is God and I approve of these words? Of course not.

The Evangelical Christian says, the pastor says, the denomination says, the Bible says, but there is no way of knowing what God said. And this is why the foundation of Christianity is not the Bible but faith.

Let me conclude this post by illustrating how pervasive is the belief that the Bible is inerrant/inspired. The following Gallop Poll charts tell a depressing story about how Americans view the Bible:

Gallup concludes:

The percentage of Americans taking a literal view of the Bible has declined over time, from an average of 38% from 1976-1984 to an average of 31% since. However, highly religious Americans — particularly those of Protestant faiths — still commonly believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

In general, the dominant view of Americans is that the Bible is the word of God, be it inspired or actual, as opposed to a collection of stories recorded by man. That is consistent with the findings that the United States is a predominantly Christian nation and that Americans overwhelmingly believe in God.

Perhaps it is time for Christian churches to stop studying the Bible for a year so they can focus on reading and studying a few of Dr. Bart Ehrman’s books. Of course, if pastors did this they might risk being fired because their congregations would know that they’ve been lying to them about the Bible — and it IS a lie to omit facts about the origin, nature, and history of the Biblical text.

Until Evangelicals are disabused of their errant beliefs about the Bible, they will continue to arrogantly think that they have THE truth, that their God is the one, true, living God, and that the words of the Bible are God directly speaking to them. Until they understand that the Bible is not what they claim it is, there is no hope of having rational discussions with them. The Evangelical position can be summed up like this: God said it, end of discussion.

Notes

Some groups take inspiration and inerrancy a step farther and say that the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. The followers of Peter Ruckman even believe the italicized words added by translators to improve the reading and understanding of the King James translation, are inerrant and inspired. Ruckmanites believe the italicized words are an advanced revelation given to the translators by God.

Some Evangelicals believe that God has preserved his Words down through history. These Evangelicals admit that the original manuscripts do not exist, but they believe God, down through the centuries, has magically preserved (kept perfect) his Word, and that the King James Bible is the preserved Word of God for English-speaking people.

If you want a complete, detailed understanding of what most Evangelicals believe about the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, please read the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Here is a Who’s Who list of Evangelical scholars who signed the Chicago Statement.

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.

A Lifetime of Studying the Seven Books of Harry Potter, the One True Wizard

Bruce Gerencser March 13, 2024 Evangelicalism 9 Comments

Our Lord, Savior, and King, Harry James Potter, born of the virgin Lily

When I was a child, my parents took me to First Hogwarts Church — a sect committed to following the teachings of Harry Potter. Every Saturday, congregants would gather to hear the head wizard preach from one of the Harry Potter books. Prior to the head wizard’s sermon, everyone would stand, hold their magic wands high, and sing praises to the one true wizard Harry Potter. I remember feeling the presence of Harry in our midst. “Surely, Harry is with us!” the head wizard would say. And all the people would say, “Amen!”

Every Tuesday, my parents would take me to Tuesday School — a school where church youngsters were instructed in the ways of Harry and the Seven Books of Harry Potter. Teachers would use all sorts of visual aids and music to reinforce the grand truth that Harry is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life.

As a teenager, I confessed before the church that I believed Harry was calling me to be a head wizard. After graduation from high school, I moved to Scotland and enrolled at Hogwarts School of Potter Theology. I spent the next six years studying the seven books that made up the inspired, inerrant, infallible Words of Harry. My favorite book was Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Such a mighty wizard Lord Harry was. I was honored to worship his name and study his magnificent writings. Of all the books ever written, none was better than Harry’s. After all, only devotion to Harry and his writings leads to life eternal in the Great Hogwarts in the Sky. And I sure was devoted. Who doesn’t want to spend eternity watching Harry cast spells? Who doesn’t want to spend every moment of every day for millions and millions of years telling Harry how wonderful, mighty, and awesome he is? After all, he saved us from the cults of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. That alone is reason enough for us to prostrate ourselves before Harry and give glory to his name!

After graduating from Hogwarts School of Potter Theology, I returned to the United States, married, and started a Hogwarts Church in Lynchburg, Virginia. Lynchburg was known for its cults — especially Thomas Road Baptist Church — a cult founded by Jerry Falwell and now pastored by his son Jerry, Jr. My goal was to win as many people as possible to the one true faith. I spent hours every day going door to door, telling Lynchburg residents about Harry and his seven books. On Sundays, I stood in front of Thomas Road or other non-Harry churches and handed out tracts containing excerpts from one of Harry’s books. I thought, “If people would only hear and accept the words of Harry, their lives would be transformed.” “Harry Saves!” I told everyone who would listen. Sadly, most people rejected the truth, choosing instead to worship a 2,000-year-old dead man named Jesus. How silly is that, right?

Every week or so, I would visit the local public schools and hand out chapter excerpts from the Seven Books of Harry Potter, hoping that they would ride our bus on Saturdays to First Hogwarts Church. “Come hear the words of Harry,” I told them. One school principal called the police on me, saying, “only the Gideons are allowed to hand out magic books at this school!”

I was appalled by how the residents of Lynchburg lived their lives. Instead of following the moral and ethical teachings of Harry, the one true Wizard, people followed the teachings of a book they called the Bible. I tried to show them that the Bible was false, and that only the Seven Books of Harry Potter were true, but most of them refused to see the light. Many of them even believed that their God created the universe in six twenty-four-hour days, 6,027 years ago. “How silly,” I thought. Having spent thousands of hours reading and studying Harry’s words and that of the high wizards throughout history, I knew that Harry was the one true Creator — that the universe was billions of years old. Why couldn’t these Christians see the truth? All they needed to do was look to the night sky to see evidence of the mighty works of Harry, the Creator.

Over the years, my wife and I had seven children, one for each of the Harry Potter books. Our children were nurtured in the one true faith, and our oldest son followed in my footsteps and became a high wizard. He now pastors a Hogwarts Church in Rome. Our son hopes to bring Catholics to the light. He even dreams of converting the Pope to Potterism. “Dream big,” I told him. “With Harry all things are possible!”

I am now an old man, having spent my entire adult life reading, studying, and preaching the Seven Books of Harry Potter. I have memorized vast portions of Harry’s works, and I have even written several books about the teachings of Harry. Hogwarts School of Potter Theology uses my book, The Hidden Meanings of the Seven Books of Harry Potter, in their advanced classes. I am honored to have wizards-in-training studying my book. I only hope that they can see the deep, hidden meanings found in the Words of Harry. I know that if students will embrace my teachings, they will become first-rate wizards, able to perform many wonderful, mighty works with their wands. All praise be to Harry!

Does this story sound absurd to you? Of course it does. Why would anyone believe such nonsense? Yes, indeed, why WOULD anyone . . .

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, Your Health Problems Are God’s Judgment on Your Life

Bruce Gerencser March 11, 2024 Health 23 Comments

Last week, I shared with readers my interaction with a former church member named Terry. Terry was a teenager and young adult in two churches I pastored in the 1980s and 1990s. You can read my responses to Terry here and here.

Terry decided to stop messaging me, leaving me with one final comment. After striking a conciliatory tone, Terry took issue with my use of swear words — three out of 3,000 words — saying, “Not sure why you have [to] drop foul language in you[r] blogs sounds ignorant and childish.” Sigh, right? (Please read Why I Use the Word “Sigh.”) It is almost always Fundamentalist Christians who get upset over my use of non-approved words. I addressed this subject in a post titled Evangelical Swear Words. I don’t use many swear words in my writing. If my sparse use of them offends you, then, by all means, stop frequenting this site. I wouldn’t want to cause any further anal clenching for you. 🙂

Terry also had one more judgment to hurl my way:

Have you considered your health might be a judgment from God.

Terry knows I have serious health problems. I explained all of these issues in my second response to him. Yet, he decided to say that the “real” reason for my suffering is that God is judging me. Terry is not the first Evangelical to make such a claim. How could Terry possibly know that my health problems are his peculiar God’s judgment on my life for walking away from Christianity? Only God could know this for sure, right? Yet, Terry and other Evangelicals, seem to think they can divine God’s will, purpose, and plan for what I have experienced in life.

While my gastroparesis and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) diagnoses were determined in the past three years, everything else I am dealing with: fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, high blood pressure, diabetes, neuropathy, and degenerative spine disease, all first showed their faces while I was still an Evangelical pastor. My debilitating pain predates my atheism. I was an on-fire, sold-out follower of Jesus when I saw a doctor who diagnosed me with fibromyalgia. I was twenty-one years old the first time I had a problem with my spine. Polly, my partner of forty-six years, has many “fond” memories of the years I spent battling pneumonia and never-ending problems with bronchitis. She fondly remembers me spending a night in the ICU for a suspected heart attack, only to, thankfully, hear I had pleurisy. She remembers me almost dying from mononucleosis in the early 1990s; hearing the internist at the hospital tell her that if my immune system didn’t pick up there was nothing he could do for me. She almost was a widow at a young age.

Evangelicals who say my health problems are God’s judgment seem to be clueless as to how their words are “heard”; either that, or they don’t care. Do they really believe that telling me that their peculiar God is inflicting me with pain and suffering for no other reason than I lack sufficient evidence to believe in or worship him will lead me back to Jesus?

In 2023, I wrote a post titled, Bruce, You Are Sick and in Pain Because God is Trying to Get Your Attention. I said, in part:

I have a three-year-old redheaded grandson named Silas. He’s a handful. Silas has no fear of anything. He must be watched at all times. Our living room is small, 16’x20′. We have three lamps in the room, along with an overhead light. I HATE the overhead light. My grandkids know not to turn the light on when I am in the room. Not Silas. He will run over to the wall switch, give me a look — you know, THAT look — turn on the light, and run off. No matter what I say or do, Silas keeps flipping the switch. Mischief is his middle name, some sort of karmic payback for my own childhood mischief. If my mom were alive, she would be smiling.

Imagine if I determined to teach Silas a lesson about the overhead light. I decided that the next time Silas turned the light on I would break his arm. Boy, that would get his attention, right? This is EXACTLY what Evangelicals are saying when they say that God has afflicted me to get my attention or to teach me a lesson. What, exactly, did I ever do to God to deserve such punishment? Or is God okay with Bruce, the Evangelical-preacher-turned-atheist, and it is Evangelicals who want to see me suffer? Sadly, many Evangelicals are sadists. Unbelievers have what they can’t have, so they rail against them, uttering threats of suffering, death, and Hell.

If I broke Silas’ arm because he kept turning on the light, I would deserve to be arrested and locked up for my crime. So it is for the Evangelical deity who inflicts suffering on finite beings. If such a deity exists, he is unworthy of our worship.

As far as my pain and suffering coming from God is concerned, I wrote:

Let me circle back around to this idea that God gave me fibromyalgia, gastroparesis, and degenerative spine disease because he is trying to get my attention; that every night I writhe in pain in bed, unable to sleep, my suffering is a message of love from the Christian deity.

What’s with God “trying” to do anything? Is he weak and powerless, unable to do what he wants? If God is not willing that any should perish, how is possible that Bruce Gerencser, a frail, broken-down biped, can thwart God’s will? Surely God can easily and effortlessly reach me at any time. “Nothing is too hard for God” and “with God all things are possible,” the Bible says. Yet, it seems that saving me is too hard for God and that it is impossible for the Big Kahuna to reach me.

If my suffering is God trying to get my attention, does this mean that if I repent and put my faith and trust in Jesus, my chronic pain and illnesses will immediately and magically disappear? Crickets are all I hear from Evangelicals. They know there is no connection between my health problems and God. None. Shit happens, and this is my shit to deal with.

As I told one Evangelical zealot several weeks ago after she said she was praying God would totally heal me, if God heals me I will immediately repent and become a Christian. I will shutter this blog and immediately return to church. I might even become a pastor again. What a miraculous story I would have to tell. The Defiant Atheist Bruce Gerencser Brought to Repentance and Faith By God Delivering Him From Pain and Suffering!! What a story, right?

And a “story” it shall remain. As much as I would like to go to bed tonight without pain and debility, I know that God is not going to heal me. This is my lot in life, and no amount of praying will change this fact. God isn’t judging me. I am paying the price of admission to the human race. I accept that this is just how things are.

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.

Christians Say the Darnedest Things: IFB Pastor John MacFarlane Reminds Congregants That They Are Worthless Without Jesus

Bruce Gerencser March 11, 2024 Things Christians Say 3 Comments

Recently, John MacFarlane, pastor of First Baptist Church in Bryan, Ohio, reminded congregants that they are worthless without Jesus as their Lord and Savior:

Today is considered a day of empowerment. Self-affirming statements beginning with “I am” are to spoken to yourself. [I AM Bruce Almighty! Man, that’s empowering.] 🙂

….

Interestingly, I preached a sermon a month ago that addressed this issue. The purpose of self-affirmation is to remind those who may be considered weak, insignificant, or less than others in society that they are not and to provide a dose of encouragement. There’s one huge, significant problem, though, with worldly self-affirmation. [In other words, we should treat people like shit because God treats them like shit.]

Humanity is glorified. Man affirms the goodness OF man and IN man while ignoring the truth found in Romans 3:10-12. “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (11) There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. (12) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

By making these humanistic affirmations, it comes dangerously close to elevating man to the place of God. [OMG! Humanism!!!!!!]

When I make a self-affirming statement and say, “I am,” it is falling into the psychological trap of affirming man whereas theology and the Christian life is about affirming God. Either MAN gets the credit or GOD gets the credit, but you cannot simultaneously credit both. (Please see Giving Credit to Whom Credit is Due.)

Remember, dear Christian, that we are NOTHING apart from God and the salvation provided by His Son, Jesus Christ. It is the Lord who makes “all things work together for good.” Self-affirmation is a sinful, prideful maneuver to stroke our egos.

Affirm GOD. Credit GOD. Glorify GOD. Praise GOD. Amen! [except when something “bad” happens. then it is your fault; the flesh’s fault; Satan’s fault]

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.

Christians Say the Darnedest Things: Atheists Always Support Perversion Says IFB Pastor Tommy McMurtry

Bruce Gerencser March 11, 2024 Things Christians Say 7 Comments

Recently, Pastor Tommy McMurtry, pastor of Liberty Baptist Church in Rock Falls, Illinois, said:

The atheist religion always is a supporter of perversion. They are always the biggest supporters of the LGBT, the trans rights, and all that because it is an anti-God religion. And unfortunately for them, the preaching of the truth that we do exposes the filthiness of their lifestyle, the filthiness of their belief system, and they don’t like that. They just hate light. That’s all there is to it.

Christians Say the Darnedest Things: Evangelical Geri Ungurean Shares Her Ignorant View of Atheists

Bruce Gerencser March 11, 2024 Things Christians Say 14 Comments

Recently, Evangelical zealot Geri Ungurean had this to say about atheists:

Find a person who not only claims to be an Atheist, but obsesses on pushing their atheistic views on others so as to recruit them; and I guarantee that if truth be told, and this person opened up about their life, you would find an ANGRY person. You would find a person who blames the God whom they say does not exist, for something that happened in their life.

It’s truly sad.

There is a saying that goes like this: “There are no atheists in foxholes.” I believe this is true. A lifelong “atheist” will cry out “God help me” when faced with death.

VERY TELLING.

Do you have a person in your life who claims to be an atheist? I have many. But I came to the point when I realized that God must be the One who gets through to the “haters.” The more you push against them, the nastier they become. The more Scripture you give to them, the more they laugh.

So, what can we do?

Love them and pray for them. There is a man on Twitter whose sole purpose for being on there is to tout his “atheism” in hopes of drawing others to his sad conclusions.

I watched this man for many days. I wanted to say something to him, but it was as if God was holding me back. I felt in my spirit to show Christian love to him and most importantly to Pray for him.

He finally opened up to me that he went to seminary and that he was saved during college. He knows that my boys (grown) refer to themselves as atheists now. I feel that the Holy Spirit has led me in this friendship. I pray for this man every day – expecting God’s answer.

I am hoping and praying that the Lord will bring him back. I pray for God’s will to be done in his life.

But I don’t for one minute believe that he is an atheist. I believe that something happened in his life which made him bitter towards God.

Brethren, I believe that many of us have these people in our lives. Sometimes, they are in our immediate families. Sometimes they are friends or co-workers. Show love to them and do not argue with them.

Most importantly, PRAY for them every single day!

The Arm of God is not too short to reach anyone, and that includes those who are angry with Him!

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.

Evangelical Swear Words

Bruce Gerencser March 11, 2024 Evangelicalism 28 Comments

Repost from 2015. Edited, updated, and corrected.

At one time, Christians seemed to all agree that saying swear words was a sin, especially uttering blasphemous phrases like God dammit or go to hell. These days, in many corners of the Christian ghetto, swearing is now accepted. Even preachers are known to show their coolness and hipster cred by using choice words, not only in their conversations with others, but also in their sermons.

I came of age in the late 1960s and 1970s. In the Baptist churches I attended, saying swear words was definitely considered a sin against the thrice-holy God. Most of the preachers of my youth would quote Exodus 20:7: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, as justification for their prohibitions against cursing. These preachers never did explain how saying “shit” was “taking God’s name in vain.” I later came to see that this commandment had little to do with saying certain words. According to 17th Century Presbyterian theologian and pastor Matthew Henry, taking God’s name in vain meant:

We take God’s name in vain, [1.] By hypocrisy, making a profession of God’s name, but not living up to that profession. Those that name the name of Christ, but do not depart from iniquity, as that name binds them to do, name it in vain; their worship is vain (Mat_15:7-9), their oblations are vain (Isa_1:11, Isa_1:13), their religion is vain, Jam_1:26. [2.] By covenant-breaking; if we make promises to God, binding our souls with those bonds to that which is good, and yet perform not to the Lord our vows, we take his name in vain (Mat_5:33), it is folly, and God has no pleasure in fools (Ecc_5:4), nor will he be mocked, Gal_6:7. [3.] By rash swearing, mentioning the name of God, or any of his attributes, in the form of an oath, without any just occasion for it, or due application of mind to it, but as a by-word, to no purpose at all, or to no good purpose. [4.] By false swearing, which, some think, is chiefly intended in the letter of the commandment; so it was expounded by those of old time. Thou shalt not forswear thyself, Mat_5:33. One part of the religious regard the Jews were taught to pay to their God was to swear by his name, Deu_10:20. But they affronted him, instead of doing him honour, if they called him to be witness to a lie. [5.] By using the name of God lightly and carelessly, and without any regard to its awful significancy. The profanation of the forms of devotion is forbidden, as well as the profanation of the forms of swearing; as also the profanation of any of those things whereby God makes himself known, his word, or any of his institutions; when they are either turned into charms and spells, or into jest and sport, the name of God is taken in vain.

Sure, in point number five, Henry mentions swearing, but what about points one through four: being a hypocrite, breaking a vow, rashly making an oath, and lying? On Sunday, each of the churches I pastored gave parishioners and visitors an opportunity to come forward during the public invitation and get right with God, either by getting saved or confessing sin. I witnessed plenty of weeping and gnashing of teeth as people covered the altar rail with their tears (and snot). Oh God, I’m so sorry I lusted after Sister Susie this week, please forgive me. Dear Jesus, please forgive me for looking at porn. I promise to never, never look at a naked woman who is not my wife again. Dear God, I know that YOU know that I really didn’t stop smoking like I told the preacher I did. I’m so sorry for lying. I plead the blood of Jesus over my life and I promise to never, ever smoke another Marlboro. And, in a matter of hours, days, or weeks, the penitent church members would return to their “sin,” thus requiring a new round of weeping and wailing. Their vows to not sin were, according to Matthew Henry, taking God’s name in vain.

Many of us who use curse words use them when we are angry or upset. Sometimes, we use swear words to ameliorate a serious pain that we are having. I’ve learned that, after hitting my finger with a hammer, saying “God dammit!” really loud tends to lessen the pain. According to research presented to the British Psychological Society, swearing is an emotional language, and using it can make a person feel better. Perhaps the use of 506 expletives in 179 minutes as actors did in the movie Wolf of Wall Street is a tad bit excessive, but I know firsthand that cursing can, and does, have a cathartic effect on a person. While certainly those who swear must be aware of proper social conventions, swearing at the referee on TV who just hosed your favorite football team can be emotionally satisfying, and I highly recommend it.

A dear friend of mine from back in the days when we both were part of the Trinity Baptist Church youth group, laughs every time she hears me utter a swear word. She often replies, “I never thought I’d see the day when Bruce Gerencser said a swear word.” From the time I was saved at the age of 15 until I left the ministry, I never uttered one swear word, outwardly anyhow. I thought plenty of swear words but never verbalized them. To do so would have branded me as a sinner and as a man who didn’t have his emotions under control.

Evangelicals are every bit as emotional and angry as their counterparts in the world. Knowing that telling someone to “fuck off” would bring them rebuke and shame, Evangelicals have developed what I call Christian swear words. Christian swear words are expressions such has:

Shucks
Shoot
Darn
Dangit
Freaking
Crap
Gosh darn it
Son of a gun
Frigging
Shucky darn

As you can easily see, these words are meant to be replacements for the real swear words. This way, angry or emotionally upset Evangelicals can express themselves without running afoul of God’s FCC.

Years ago, a preacher who considered himself totally sanctified (without sin), was known for using the phrase, taking it to the hilt. He and I were quite good friends, and one day when he repeated his favorite phrase, I told him, you know that taking it to the hilt can be used as a sexual reference for sticking the penis all the way into its base (hilt). He was indignant that I would dare to suggest such a thing. He later learned I was right and apologized (Do you suppose it ever dawned on him that he had sinned by using this phrase after he said he no longer was a sinner?)

Swear words are just that: words. Social conventions dictate their use. I am a card-carrying member of the Swearers Club. I make liberal use of curse words, especially when speaking to officials from afar on a televised sporting event. Even Polly, sweet, sweet Polly, my wife, has devolved to my level. While I am careful when using swear words in public or around those who are easily offended, I refuse to be bullied into submission by the word police. I rarely use swear words in my writing, but I do so on occasion. It’s up to the individual readers to decide if a well-placed malediction is offensive enough to stop them from reading.

Sometimes, when responding to the emails persnickety Evangelicals love to send me, I deliberately use swear words that I know will euphemistically cause urine to flow from their genitals. They will respond with outrage as did fundamentalist Baptist preacher Jeff Setzer during a “discussion” on the post, The Legacy of Jack Hyles. When Jeff first commented on the Jack Hyles post, he was polite and respectful. However, during his last round of comments he decided to get more aggressive — a common ploy used by Evangelical zealots. When I determined that Setzer hadn’t taken the time to actually read my story, I responded to him by writing, “I encourage you to take the time to read my writing. The answers you seek can be found there.” And here’s the dialog that followed:

Setzer, in response to Brian, a former IFB pastor’s son: You can be wrong too, right along with all of the molesters. And like the victims of physical abuse, you are a victim of spiritual and intellectual abuse…that which is many times more difficult to overcome than mere physical abuse. Since the physical realm regularly confirms the Bible to be true, as well as other realms of evidence, I KNOW the Bible is truth. There is NO doubt whatsoever.

Bruce: Ah, now there’s the Christian asshole that every Fundamentalist eventually morphs into. This is your last comment.

Setzer: Do you know what profanity is? How about what kindness means? Or intolerance? “Last comment”? Can you not reason and share where your supposed point of rejection was, or perhaps you have built a wall, making a skin of a reason based upon woefully fallible men who set up themselves as authoritative? I’ll look up the posts to which you refer, but I haven’t seen any logic on here yet but rather emotion. You’ve come to a conclusion out of emotion and not logic. I’d be glad to communicate further with you if you’re open to logic and evidence and not being outright dismissive. Thanks for being willing to dialogue.

Bruce: After your first comment you were taken to a page that had the comment rules. You have violated the commenting rules and this is why I will not approve any further comments by you. My asshole comment is in response to your last approved comment. If you don’t like being called an asshole, don’t act like one.

You can read the rest of the sphincter-muscle stimulating comments here.

I am of the opinion that if a person doesn’t want to be called an asshole then he shouldn’t act like one. Setzer, ever the clueless Fundamentalist, was more concerned over me using profanity than he was how his words were being perceived by myself and others. Instead of becoming outraged over a word, perhaps God’s anointed ones should pay attention to how their own words and behaviors reflect on the good news they purportedly want everyone to believe.

As Setzer surely would have known had he bothered to spend time reading my writing, I rarely use curse words, and in the comment section I reserve their use for when Fundamentalists — and it is ALWAYS Fundamentalists — are showing how little fruit is growing on their spiritual trees. You know, the fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Sometimes, preachers I mention by name in one of my articles write asking me to remove their names from my post. They don’t like being called out by name. My thinking on this goes something like: if you didn’t want to be cast in a poor light you should have treated me better. After all, the Bible does say, you reap what you sow, right? One offended preacher was upset that I mentioned that he impregnated and married his first wife when she was 13. Here’s a man who travels the countryside telling others how to live, yet he had, and may still have, a thing for young girls (and pastors who are still having him come to their church to preach need to know this).

Well, I think I’ve run out of words to type on the computer screen. I’ll see if I can refrain from offending Fundamentalists with my salty language. Nah, fuck that . . .

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.

One of My Biggest Regrets

Bruce Gerencser March 7, 2024 Evangelicalism 12 Comments

My recent interaction with a man who was a teenager and married young adult in two churches I pastored, raised a regret that I have long had about my ministerial career and its deleterious effect on people who called me “Preacher” or “Pastor Bruce.” (Please see Dear Terry — Part One and Dear Terry — Part Two.) Thousands of people sat under my preaching at one time or the other. Hundreds of others were active congregants with whom I had closer relationships. And a handful of people — not many — were friends.

For many years, I was a hardcore, hellfire and brimstone, pulpit-pounding, King James-waving Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) preacher. While my theology and practice moderated over time, I was still quite conservative theologically and politically. It wasn’t until late in my ministerial career that I made a decided leftward turn towards the social gospel and liberal politics.

My regret comes from the influence I had over people during my IFB/conservative days; how my preaching and teaching deeply formed and instructed church members; how my preaching and teaching caused incalculable psychological harm (and led to physical harm and abuse when parents put into practice my instruction on discipline). Many of the people I once pastored are either no longer Christians or have moved on to gentler, kinder expressions of faith. I am glad that they have progressed and matured, even if I disagree with their sincerely held beliefs. I am not an antitheist. I don’t hate God or Christianity, in general. I am friends with people who are Christians. On Monday, I had lunch with a man who pastors an Evangelical church in Bryan, Ohio. We had a wonderful time. On Sunday, I will have dinner with three friends of mine: a former Lutheran pastor, a United Church of Christ pastor, and a Buddhist. We have been meeting together for years. We eat, drink, and talk about all sorts of things — including religion. I am quite comfortable having discussions with religious people as long as they don’t view me as their “enemy” or some sort of target for evangelization. I have no interest in having discussions with Bible-thumpers or Evangelical zealots. If such people want to interact with me, they can do so through my blog. Beware, the blog dog bites. 🙂

Some former congregants such as Terry haven’t moved a lick belief-wise over the years. Terry is attending a church that has beliefs similar to the churches he attended when I was his pastor. His worldview has evolved very little, if at all. I know other former church members who have similarly “progressed.” Oh, they might have made changes to peripheral social beliefs on dress, alcohol, or entertainment, but their core beliefs are similar or identical to what they were when I was their pastor. I feel bad about this, even though I know, as my therapist frequently reminds me, that their belief choices are not my fault or my responsibility. I understand this from an intellectual perspective, BUT, it is hard for me to not lament that I didn’t teach them better; that I didn’t expose them to the depth and breadth of Christian faith and theology; that I didn’t encourage them to think skeptically and rationally. I know that I couldn’t do these things because I didn’t know any better myself. I was a product of a lifetime of religious conditioning and indoctrination. That said, I have never been able to shake the regret I have over my IFB past. I am sure some of you understand exactly what I am talking about.

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.

The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser