Nineteen years ago, as a newly minted unbeliever, I shared my “testimony” on a well-known ex-Christian site. Initially, I found support from several congenial atheists who, upon seeing that I was still in the process of deconverting, gave me sound advice and answered my questions.
Soon, however, the “True Atheists” arrived, setting their sights on the inconsistencies in my “testimony.” They were savage in their attacks — however right they may have been — and I recoiled from their brutality, retreating to the rock I had previously crawled out from under.
I complained, “These people are no different from fundamentalist Baptist preachers.” Unbending, rigid, demanding conformity — all hallmarks of fundamentalist thinking — governed these atheist zealots every bit as much as they governed my former fundamentalist brethren. Fundamentalism is bad, regardless of where it is found, including atheism.
Over the past two decades, atheism has continued to have periodic problems with fundamentalism. Who can forget the Atheism+ period when some atheists demanded a commitment to social justice to be considered a “true atheist.” These atheists wanted humanistic values attached to the definition of what it means to be an atheist. I took the position then and still do today, that atheism is one thing and one thing only: the lack of belief in the existence of God. From there, atheists believe all sorts of things. The proponents of Atheism+ wanted a broader confession of “faith” than a simple confession that “Jesus” is Lord. Again, I saw fundamentalism.
Atheism+ caused a split of sorts, with proponents taking an “either you are with us or you are against us” approach. I ended up in the “against us” group, not because I disagreed with the call of Atheism+ to humanist ideals, but because of its attempt to redefine atheism. That some of the main proponents of Atheism+ acted like fire-breathing Independent Baptist preachers was troubling, but not surprising.
I eventually concluded that fundamentalism was an incurable disease that infects every aspect of the human experience, including atheism. All of us can be fundamentalists, including rational, skeptical freethinkers.
In recent days I’ve noticed another smoldering atheist fire fixing to erupt, stirred by a few atheists demanding “accountability” for a man known as an ally and asset of the atheist community, even though he not an atheist himself.
Dr. Dan McClellan is a Bible scholar. Countless atheists have been educated and helped by Dan’s TikTok and YouTube videos. Even though I have a Bible college education and was a pastor for twenty-five years, I still find Dan’s videos instructive (and entertaining).
According to several notable atheist content creators, Dan should not be supported by atheists. OMG! what did Dr. McClellan do? Are you ready? Dan’s “sin” is his membership in the Mormon church — a secret Dan has not kept from anyone willing to ask or do a bit of digging.
Dan focuses solely on Bible scholarship. His Mormon beliefs play no part in his interpretations of the Bible. I have watched hundreds of Dan’s videos. I’ve yet to see him stray from consensus-based scholarship. And when Dan, on occasion, veers off into minority views, he lets you know. Best I can tell, Dan has done a superb job of compartmentalizing his Mormon faith. While Dan has never explained the breadth and depth of his faith, his political beliefs suggest he is a progressive. He has more than a few beliefs that set him at odds with the conservative pronouncements of Mormon leaders.
It is the conservative bent of the Mormon church and Dan’s membership in that church that has riled up the newest atheist fundamentalists in our midst. These preachers of atheist purity cannot abideDr. McClellan being a go-to source for atheists. For God’s sake, he’s a tithing Mormon!
I have no doubt another fracture is on the horizon, all over a Bible scholar who just so happens to be a Mormon. It is fundamentalists who demand associational purity. That will be the case here. There will be blog posts written and videos created defending or condemning McClellan, the heretic. All this will accomplish is further disunion in a time when unity is needed.
There may come a day when Dan is no longer a Mormon. Honestly, I’m surprised Dan has not been excommunicated (I originally typed “executed) by the church. He has certainly said things that must irritate the heaven out of starched white shirt Mormon leaders in Salt Lake City. If that ever happens and Dan looks for a new place to hang his metaphorical hat, what will his experiences say to him about how individuals in the atheist community treated him?
We atheists, if we care about the future of atheism, know it’s important to put the best face possible on atheism before the world. Fundamentalist thinking and practice only retards progress. We are not so strong as a movement that we can afford to kill off our allies just because their beliefs are different from ours. Dan is an ally, and I’m going to treat him as such, regardless of our differences.
The fool’s decision to say in his heart that there is no God, then, is an act of the will, not the intellect. Derek Kidner states, “The assertion, There is no God, is in fact treated in Scripture not as a sincere if misguided conviction, but as an irresponsible gesture of defiance.” Fools say there is no God because “they are corrupt” (Ps. 14:1).
This is a critical point with regard to atheism. Atheism is a moral choice of the will. James Spiegel states it well: “Atheism is not at all a consequence of intellectual doubt. Such doubts are mere symptoms of the root cause—moral rebellion. For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but obedience.”
….
The presence of this general revelation of God in His creation explains why there is no reasoned, philosophical refutation of atheism in Scripture. The evidence is such that unbelief is inexcusable. Indeed, only a fool would reject this evidence.
….
As Spiegel explains, “The ‘wickedness’ of the unbeliever works to ‘suppress’ what is manifest in nature.
….
Every person is a created being who lives in a divinely created world, and that creation—both physical and in terms of the imago dei—makes it abundantly clear that a Creator exists. To reject the existence of God is to suppress the truth that is inherently known by every person as created in God’s image.
….
Atheism is not the result of objective assessment of evidence, but of stubborn disobedience; it does not arise from the careful application of reason but from willful rebellion. Atheism is the suppression of truth by wickedness, the cognitive consequence of immorality. In short, it is sin that is the mother of unbelief.
Atheism is a denial of what atheists—and all persons—know is true. It is essentially an attempt at self-deception. Some, no doubt, have been more successful than others at deceiving themselves, but this is the biblical assessment of their atheism.
What are we to make, then, of the many philosophical, psychological, scientific, and historical arguments atheists consistently present to back their assertion that there is no God? The biblical perspective would suggest that the “skeptical objections are the atheists’ façade, a scholarly veneer masking the real causes of their unbelief—causes that are moral and psychological in nature.”17
So, here is the path to atheism. A person engages in immorality of one sort or another. He realizes by way of conscience or exposure to biblical truth that such conduct is morally wrong and an offense to the true God.
When confronted with the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and his written Word, a sinner can fall before God in repentance and faith or remain unrepentant and continue in rebellion against the Creator. The atheist not only has chosen the latter but also has chosen to justify his choice by proclaiming that God does not exist.
The intellectual arguments denying God’s existence, then, are simply the justification for the moral choice to reject God and live free of moral restraints. E. Michael Jones says it succinctly:
“Those who commit evil will be troubled by its pangs, and in their trouble they have only two alternatives: they can either conform their actions to the moral law or conform the moral law to their actions. The former case calls for repentance, the latter rationalization.”
But is this pattern stated too simplistically? After all, can we really point in every case to some particular immoral act that led the atheist to rejection of God? In other words, does the Bible’s description match reality? First, there may not be any one specific moral failure that leads a person to atheism. It could be an accumulation of failures or simply a growing desire to be free to live immorally or at least without the restraints, disapproval, and threatened judgment of a living, holy God. Such thoughts and desires, of course, cannot be easily detected, but they are still immoral.
Second, while most atheists present their decision to reject belief in God in terms of intellect and reasoning, some are quite forthright and explicit in confirming that their journey began with immorality. For example, former Church of Christ minister John Loftus admits his turn to atheism began with an adulterous affair. Aldous Huxley stated, “We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”
Regardless of what can be clearly observed in life, the Bible offers the only sure explanation for atheism. It is sin, disobedience, rebellion.
Sigh, I know. Same shit, new day. Everything said above can be summarized with two lies: Atheists suppress the truth in unrighteousness and desire to commit (sexual) immorality. Neither of these claims is true. Besides, as the Black Collar Crime Series clearly shows, the very clerics pontificating about atheist immorality have their own problems, not only with sexual immorality, but with sex crimes.
Shepherds Theological Seminary claims:
The Christian church has felt the attacks and the need to respond to atheists’ philosophical arguments. The church also has felt the heartache of formerly professing Christians renouncing the faith and proudly embracing atheism.
Who are examples of professing Christians who have renounced the faith and PROUDLY embraced atheism?
Just to name a few: Bart Compolo, son of Tony Compolo, prominent sociologist and representative of the evangelical left; Abraham Piper, son of the popular pastor-theologian John Piper; Ken Daniels, formerly a missionary with Wycliffe Bible Translators; Bruce Gerencser, a former pastor in the Baptist Bible Fellowship; and John Loftus, former pastor in the Church of Christ and graduate of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. In addition to these are many others who have renounced Christianity but would fit better into the category of agnostic—one who says he or she does not or cannot know if there is a God. Much of what is said in this article will relate to agnostics as well.
No, I was never a pastor in the Baptist Bible Fellowship. Not sure where they got that from. Outside of that, I am pleased to be named with Bart Campolo, Abraham Piper, Ken Daniels, and John Loftus. Talk about a rogues’ gallery.
The author of this article lives in deliberate denial of why people, especially pastors and other church professionals, are deconstructing, and often leaving Evangelical Christianity altogether. Contrary to the aforementioned article, there are a plethora of reasons followers of Jesus embrace atheism/agnosticism. Rarely do people deconvert just so they can commit immorality. It is, at best, an exception to the rule. I know a lot of Evangelical-preachers-turned-atheists. Most of them left Christianity for intellectual reasons. This is a fact, as any cursory research will show. The folks as Shepherds Theological Seminary can’t bear to abide by such a thought, so they lie about why people actually deconvert. They can’t fathom someone leaving Evangelicalism for intellectual reasons, so they make up stories about why people deconvert. Perhaps those liars-for-Jesus might want to read what the Bible says about liars. They go where, exactly? The Lake of Fire. The same place the hypocrites at Shepherds Theological Seminary have consigned atheists. And as far as immorality is concerned, either the moralizers at Shepherds Theological Seminary aren’t paying attention to the rampant sexual sin in Evangelicalism or they have their own “secret” sins they are trying to hide by besmirching atheists. Classic “whataboutism,” I’d say. Look over there at those evil immoral atheists, all the while Evangelical preachers are fucking their secretaries, screwing church members, molesting children, and committing the very same immoral behaviors they say atheists are doing.
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Richard decided to go the extra mile to get me to join his religious club by sending me yet another email. My response follows. (All spelling, grammar, and punctuation in the original.)
Greetings Bruce:
God is not intimidated by His human creation at all. An all-powerful being could impose His will on us and cause us to be automatons that fell into lockstep with His every whim. That never was His intent. He wants us to follow Him because we love Him and choose to believe He has our highest good as His primary goal. He likewise gives us the choice to have nothing to do with Him.
It’s evident you have not actually read all of the Bible if you think it teaches libertarianfreewill. I’m more than happy to debate this issue with you, but youmust use the comment section to do so. I’m not interested in carrying on a private discussion with you. By commenting, you will give other readers the opportunity to interact with you too.
If you are unwilling to do so, I will give you one opportunity to say whatever you want to say in a post. I will publish your “sermon” unedited. After that, we’re done. We’re not friends, nor would I want to be based on your insufferable behavior.
Your last e-mail seemed to express disappointment that I did not ask you any questions. God asks Job lots of questions about a whole variety of subjects in Job 38-41. If you really want to answer questions, go ahead and answer those questions. It is obvious that Job suddenly realized how out of his depth he really was when God started to ask him about things that only God had the answers to.
First, the invitation was for readers to ask me questions. All you did is preach, as you currently do in this email.
Second, you make claims for which you provide no evidence. You speak of a deity you assume everyone believes exists. I don’t, so quoting Bible verses ain’t going do much in providing me evidence for the existence of the Christian deity.
Let me address an area that bothered you.I appealed to his sense of propriety and decency, but Richard was having none of that. Instead, he callously said, “Bruce, we all are sick and all of us are suffering from a terminal illness for which we will one day die.” No compassion, respect, or common courtesy. All that matters in Richard’s mind is where I will go after I die.”
As someone who has several chronic health conditions which undoubtedly cause distress and discomfort, you have come to the conclusion that I am hard-hearted and callous by my lack of sympathy.The conditions you currently face may very well someday converge to the point where your death occurs sooner rather than later. I am mindful of this, but you were spot on in that last sentence when you stated “All that matters in Richard’s mind is where I will go after I die. Eternity has no end.It goes on forever.I am very much concerned about that part of you that continues to live on after your sojourn on this planet is concluded.
Claims, claims, claims, Richard, for which you provide no evidence.
You are concerned about my soul; I don’t have one. Do you have evidence that suggests otherwise? Of course not.
Jesus once said, ” For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” Matthew 16:26 KJV
You have no idea if Jesus actually said this. Do you have evidence that says otherwise? Of course not.
Bruce, it is very easy to major on the minor instead of minor on what is major.
All of us have our own wants, needs, and desires. Who are you to tell me what is important or not important in my life?
[Masturbatory Bible quotes deleted]
In closing, let me touch on one final theme that you take exception to. You claim that Jesus is dead. If that is the case, how come nobody has been able to produce the body? That would totally destroy the claims that Jesus rose from the dead.
Richard, surely you are not this stupid. Right? Come on, Dude, think. Billions of people have lived and died on our planet. The overwhelming majority of their bodies are nowhere to be found. Why would it be any different for a Jewish criminal named Jesus H. Christ? If the basic Bible account is true, Jesus was executed with two other criminals. After death, Jesus ended up the same place as they did: an unmarked pit grave, never to be seen again.
[Deleted Evangelical lies about most of the apostles being martyred for Christ. This claim is patently untrue. Either Richard knows this and is lying, or he lacks a basic understanding of Christian church history.]
Bruce, I do not write you to put you on the spot in front of an audience. I have a genuine concern for you. Romans 5:8 says, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. May God continue to lead and guide your steps aright!
I’m not concerned with that at all.
I don’t plan to further respond to you. There’s an offer on the table for you to write a post on a subject of your choosing, Feel free to preach away, knowing that this will be the last thing written by you published on this site.
Let’s see if you are respectful enough to honor my wishes. One and done, Richard. I can’t be clearer.
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Here in the sunset years of my life, I have decided to embark on a world-changing endeavor; one that could transform our planet. I am starting a new, yet unnamed, religion; a religion for people who don’t like religion. Yes, sir, a religion for the billions of earthlings who have no interest in the religions cooked up by humans over the past 4,000 or so years. This new religion will be different: a human endeavor meant to make life better for all of us, even Evangelical Christians.
This project is a humorous, snarky — and slightly serious — attempt to show the world a better way. Here’s what I know so far about this earth-shattering, world-redefining religion. First, this will be a no-deity religion. Second, it will be (generally) built upon a foundation of secular humanism — the basic rules of the road for humanity. I have no doubt that some “Bruce” will creep in. I have plenty of thoughts about this project, and I am sure my beliefs will influence this project. The good news is that anyone can start their own religion. The Apostle Paul did, why can’t you? Joseph Smith did, creating Mormonism, the first American-made religion. Surely you can do the same if you don’t like the religion I’m starting. That is what is great about religion. It’s a paint-by-number painting without numbers. Paint away . . .
Here’s what I need from you: what would you like to see in a new religion? I will use data collected from readers to help shape this religion using AI. I have already performed a trial run on this project. Hilarious to say the least. Want to have some fun? Your input — serious or not — is appreciated. This is your opportunity to make a difference, or, at the very least, have some fun with likeminded people.
If you are anti-AI, please don’t. AI is a tool, and that’s how I plan to use it. If you think differently, fine, but I have spent countless hours trying to better understand artificial intelligence (AI) and how to ethically use it. I have lots of opinions on the matter, but I have no interest in having AI wars on my blog. When I one day receive the “mark of the beast,” you can tell me you were right. 🙂 Until then, spirited discussion is welcome. Anti-AI sermonizing is not.
This will be a longterm project; one which I hope to publish to its own website.
I look forward to reading your suggestions.
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
What changes have you seen, if any, to the types of comment you receive to your posts over the many years you’ve been going? There’s been a huge advance in the quality of comment on dedicated atheist websites, where it’s more about taking the arguments and the evidence to apologists, but this is not really one of those sites, being more about the practical implications of being a nonbeliever living in a religious culture. Obviously there are the silly commenters like Revival Fires, but what about more general comments?
Blog comments have always been an important part of this site. Since December 2014, 53,000 comments have been left by readers. The stated goal of The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser has been to provide help to those who have questions and doubts about Christianity and those who have already left Christianity. While some posts are outliers to this goal, for the most part, I have stayed true to my goal: helping others navigate having questions about or leaving primarily Evangelical Christianity.
Over the years, millions of people have stopped by this site. People come and go, often without a word about why. Most readers never comment or send me an email, so I am uncertain as to how my writing has been received by them. As far as commenters are concerned, I do wonder why certain people stop commenting. Did I piss them off? Maybe. I suspect that the real reason is they may have found my writing not as helpful as it once was, or they disagree with my progressive, liberal, socialist, pacifist politics. Nothing I can do about that. I’m not going to change my beliefs for the sake of readership numbers. While the Orange Menace, President Donald Trump, has certainly amped up my political writing in recent years, I don’t think anyone would say this is a political blog.
This blog was a deconstruction/ex-evangelical site long before these words came into popular, everyday use. The other day, I stumbled upon a three-year-old social media post about me. The writer, a Christian, wanted to know if anyone had heard of an atheist named Bruce Gerencser. He wondered why I wasn’t part of the atheist mainstream, suggesting I must have done something “bad” to be marginalized by atheists.
I have contented myself to stay in my lane. I am not a big self-promoter, so I am not going to contact an atheist (or Christian) site or podcast to sell myself to them. I’ve been blogging since 2007, first as a barely-hanging-on liberal-leaning Evangelical Christian, and then, after deconverting in 2008, as an atheist. Over the years, I have been interviewed by blogs, websites, magazines, newspapers, and appeared on numerous podcasts, which you can access here. From time to time, journalists contact me for information about Evangelicalism in general, and the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church movement. In all of this, I have not promoted myself one time. I rely on word of mouth and personal recommendations to spread the good news that “Bruce Gerencser Saves.” S&H Green Stamps (for older readers)? No, but I have helped “save” countless people from the clutches of Evangelical Christianity and other Fundamentalist religions. I know this because I hear from people thanking me for helping them deconstruct, deconvert, or move on to kinder, gentler forms of religious faith.
I have also been labeled a follower of Satan; an enemy of Christianity. Thousands of comments have been left by Evangelicals upset over something I wrote. The attacks, at times, have been brutal, so much so that I stopped blogging several times years ago. I have been blogging continuously now for almost thirteen years. On this iteration of my blog, I have written over 6,000 posts.
In the early days of this site, the comment section was flooded with comments from butthurt IFB adherents, including pastors, evangelists, and missionaries. These folks have largely stopped commenting, leading me to claim victory! 🙂 Not really. I suspect they either became bored, or, unable to successfully challenge my claims, moved on to easier targets for their sermons, proof-texts, and shallow, contradictory apologetics.
Geoff mentioned the evolving and improved content and comments on some atheist sites, and I agree with him. The online atheist community is changing. Out goes the old guard, and in comes a new batch of atheists to hopefully lead the community forward. Shows such as The Atheist Experience and Talk Heathen are mere shadows of what they once were; other sites such as Almost Ian, the DZ Debates (Justin), The Bible Guy, Mythvision, Harmonic Atheist, Jon Cohen, and the various shows on Jimmy Snow’s network, The Line, to name a few. Whether these content creators have long-term success remains to be seen.
I continue to wonder why so many atheist readers come and go. Do they get what they need from me and move on, or do they find my writing boring? I don’t know, outside of the fact that I know some atheists stopped frequenting this site because of what they perceived from me was an unwarranted friendliness towards religion. Some atheists have even suggested that I am a “secret Christian.” None of these claims is true, as the vitriol dumped on my head by God’s chosen ones surely shows.
I am not sure what more I can do to attract more commenters. Typically, the people who comment are regular, long-term readers, with a few new readers’ comments sprinkled in. Gone are the long running arguments and debates over this or that religious belief or practice. Why this is no longer the case remains unclear to me. The comment section has a friendlier tone these days, more like friends getting together on a Friday night at the local pub.Usually it’s bottom feeders such as Dr. David Tee, Revival Fires, and others who provide entertainment, but none of them is up to the task of cogently defending the “faith once delivered to the saints.” These folks are little more than monkeys who fling shit at those they disagree with. No real arguments or defenses of Christianity. Instead, they resort to personal attacks and character assassination. Such people are the price you pay for having a public blog.
Over the years, the comment policy has changed, moving from a wild, wild west format to more of a controlled environment where every commenter is given at least one opportunity to say whatever they want to me. Whether they get a second comment depends on how well they play with others. I am much more likely to ban or block someone today than I was years ago. After you have heard the same Bible nonsense and personal attacks over and over and over again, it’s easy to say to yourself “I don’t want to hear this drivel any more.”
Recently, I have thought about loosening up the comment policy, but I fear that doing so might run off commenters who prefer the walled garden approach I currently use. I know I can’t please everyone, but your thoughts on this matter would be helpful.
Here’s the comment policy that has been in effect for the past four years:
All commenters are expected to use a functioning email address. The use of a fake or non-functioning email address will result in your comment being deleted.
Pseudonyms are permitted. Please use the same pseudonym with every comment.
All first-time comments and comments with more than one HTML link are moderated.
Before commenting, please read the ABOUT page to acquaint yourself with my background. You might also want to read the Dear Evangelical page.
Evangelical commenters will be given one opportunity to say whatever they want. One, not two, three, or ten. Just one. Quote the Bible. Preach the sermon God has laid upon your heart. Put in a good word for Jesus. Deconstruct my life. Call me names, attack my family. You have one opportunity to impress readers with your John Holmes-like Bible prowess. After that, the following rules apply:
The following type of comments will not be approved after your first comment:
Any comment that is not on point with what the post is about
Any comment that denigrates or marginalizes abuse victims
Any comment that attacks LGBTQ people
Unsolicited medical advice of any kind (and I mean ANY)
Any comment that disparages my wife, children, or grandchildren
Please be advised that personal threats of violence or stalking will be reported to your service provider and law enforcement.
I write about issues that might not be child-friendly. Please be aware of this. I also use profanity from time to time, and I allow the use of profanity in the comment section. Any butt-hurt comment about language will be ignored, and if warranted, ridiculed.
The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser is not a democracy where anyone has a right to say whatever they want. This is my personal blog and I reserve the right to approve or not approve any comment. When a comment or a commenter is abusive towards the community of people who read this blog, I reserve the right to ban the commenter.
If you can be respectful, decent, and thoughtful, your comment will always be approved. Unfortunately, there are many people — Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians in particular — who have a hard time playing well with others. They often use a passive-aggressive approach towards me and the non-Christian people who frequent this blog. This kind of behavior will not be tolerated and will result in a permanent ban.
This blog is also not a place for hardcore atheists to preach the gospel of atheism. While I am an atheist, many of the people who read this blog are not. Frank, honest, open, and passionate discussion about religion, Christianity, and Evangelicalism is encouraged and welcome. However, I do expect atheists not to attack, badger, or denigrate people who still believe in God. If you are respectful, decent, and thoughtful, you will be fine.
My writing is direct and pointed and so is my response to comments. Please do not confuse my directness and pointedness with me attacking you or your religion. This is a grown-up blog, so crying that I offended you or “attacked” your religion will fall on deaf ears.
If you can play by these rules, I hope you will become a part of our community and join the discussion.
— end of comment policy
Do you see something in the comment policy that you think should be changed or done away with? Or is there something you would like to see added to policy? Please share your ideas with me in comment section.
In closing, I can’t help but note how my declining health has affected this site. I was once known as a prodigious blogger, writing several posts a day. Sadly, I can no longer put out like I once did — yes, there’s a sex joke lurking in that line. I have really struggled with this issue, wondering if it is time for me to stop writing. My friends, acquaintances, and family continue to encourage me to keep writing, but when you have multiple days when you can’t even get out of bed, it’s hard to find the energy and stamina to write a text message, let alone a blog post. That said, I still try. I still push myself, even when I want to curl up on the couch and be left alone My sleep is so disturbed these days, that I sleep when I can, usually in short one- to two-hour blocks. Yesterday, I never made it out of bed, spending the day fitfully sleeping while family gathered at our home to celebrate the best mother ever. I had slept for six hours straight, but that was due to only getting a total of five hours sleep over the previous three days. This, of course, has severely messed up my schedule, forcing me to live in the moment instead of on a schedule. I can’t say I have adapted well to my new reality. I’m too old for this shit, but no one asked me, so I take every day as it comes.
Suggestions are welcome. You know what to do!
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Why have you stayed on the topic of God/Jesus for so long? It seems like you’ve never really fully left Jesus. At least, thats what it seems like.
This seems more like an accusation than it does a question, but I will assume good faith, and answer accordingly.
I have spent my entire life talking and writing about God, Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity. In 2007, I started blogging, and the following year I deconverted, walking away from Evangelical Christianity after fifty years.
Joel seems to think I should have stopped talking about Jesus after I left Christianity; that since I am no longer a Christian, I have nothing meaningful to say about the faith once delivered to the saints. Let’s suppose I spent my life as a career military officer. General Bruce, I like the ring of that. After a long career in the Army, I retired. Would anyone expect me not to talk about the military or my service any more? Would I be expected to “move on”? Of course not.
So it is with me. Christianity made a deep, lasting impression on me, especially Evangelicalism and the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church movement. It is what I know. I can’t excise the first fifty years of my life. Sorry, but that’s not how life works.
What I have to share is a lived life, and I suspect that’s what upsets Evangelicals so much. I lived, practiced and believed the teachings of the Bible — fallibly, yet sincerely. There was nothing in my life that suggested I was anything but a committed follower of Jesus. Yet, I did insult to the spirit of grace and trampled under my feet the blood of the covenant. I spit in the face of Jesus, rejecting his atoning work on the cross.
It is this rejection of faith many Evangelicals can’t or won’t understand. How dare I reject he who has made such differences in their lives. How dare I reject that which they devote their lives to. How dare I live without being constrained by the teachings of the Bible. And it is my defiance that pisses off so many Evangelicals, so much so that they turn to violence and character assassination. Just today, a local Evangelical man named Daniel Gray wrote a letter to the editor of the Defiance Crescent-News, saying that I never was a pastor; that he can’t find anyone who says I was a pastor anywhere. (I pastored three local churches in Montpelier, Fayette, and West Unity, respectively.) This, of course, is an unadulterated lie. This same man said several years ago that that I was being investigated by the State of Ohio for performing “illegal” weddings. This, too, was an ugly lie.
Rare is the Evangelical that can accept me on my own terms. Because they can’t make my story fit in their peculiar religious box, they reject what I say out of hand. Yet, millions of readers over the past twenty years have thought differently. They value my writing, though in dark, depressed moments I wonder why. They find encouragement and help from my words, even though they don’t always agree with me. More than a few people thank me for being instrumental in their deconversions.
And this upsets many Evangelicals. Not only did I deconvert, I am leading other people down a path that leads to Hell. Why can’t I just mind my own business, and move on? Of course, lost on these folks is the fact that they, themselves, do not mind their own business. They routinely evangelize and proselytize, whether non-Christians want to hear it or not. Believing they have a mandate from God, Evangelicals fan out across the Internet, putting a word in for Jesus (or Trump) everywhere they go.
And that’s fine. You know, that First Amendment thing. Evangelicals are free to witness and preach, both privately and publicly. Why should it not be the same for non-Christians, especially atheists?
Joel has been reading my blog for some time, yet he fails to understand why I do what I do. That’s not my fault. My motivations are clear to anyone who is paying attention.
Evangelicalism is not neutral. As one of the largest sects in the United States , Evangelicalism has a lot of influence on our culture. None of us can escape this influence. Our current president, arguably the worst ever, was put into office by Evangelical voters. Evangelicals now hold some of the highest, most important political offices in the land. And what are they doing with this power? They are using it to take back America for God. They are using it to enshrine Christianity as the state’s official religion. Worse, they are the people primarily behind Project 2025.
And dare we ignore who has been behind the raging culture wars for the past forty-plus years? Evangelical Christians. As as father of six children and grandfather to sixteen grandchildren, do I not have a vested interest in their future, especially when I see the United States running headlong into fascism, Christian Nationalism, and an Evangelical form of theocracy? Silence is not an option for me, nor is it for many of the people who read this blog.
So, to Joel’s false claim that I have never left Jesus, with a British accent I say, poppycock. There can be no question, except for the deliberately blind, that I am no longer a Christian; that the reason I continue to share my story and critique Evangelical Christianity is because it is a threat to social progress and the future of the United States.
I intend to “stay on the topic of God/Jesus” for as long as Evangelicals drag the dead carcass of Jesus into the public square, touting him as some sort of panacea for the ills of society. I intend to stay the course as long as Evangelicals publicly promote irrational beliefs, especially when demanding everyone believe as they do under threat of eternal fire and brimstone.
When the Joels of the world retire to their houses of worship to incessantly talk about God/Jesus/Bible/Sin/Salvation, I will shutter this blog. Until then, I intend to speak my mind, as is the right of every American—though fascist Donald Trump, with Evangelical approval, is trying to limit the free speech of those who disagree with him.
This is a battle of worldviews; a battle for the soul of our country. As long as Evangelicals demand Christianity be the state’s religion and the Bible the law of the land, they should expect pushback from me.
Unless Joel and his merry band of Evangelicals intends to cede the battlefield, I intend to stand my ground—even when I can no longer physically stand.
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
I started blogging in 2007 — almost twenty years ago. Since then, I have engaged countless Evangelicals in discussions, debates, arguments, and intellectual fist fights over their beliefs and my disagreements with them. On occasion, genuine progress is made, but more often than not, my interlocutors refuse to budge, regardless of my argumentation and evidence. This should not be surprising. No one is argued into faith or persuaded by evidence alone. Think of your own past salvation experience. Did you catch the operative word: experience? You see, religious conversions are fundamentally emotional experiences. People rarely, if ever, profess faith in Jesus because someone shared with them the five points of Calvinism or the transcendental arguments for the existence of God. I know it took years for me to admit that my deconversion had an emotional component. Not the primary motivator, but certainly a factor. I didn’t want the motivation for my loss of faith to be dismissed as nothing more than me being emotional. Eventually, I came to understand that our emotions are never far from our decision-making. That said, I desire to the best of my ability to use sound reasoning skills to make decisions about what to do or believe.
Instead of trying to argue people out of faith in Jesus, I try to challenge their sincerely held beliefs. I know if I can poke a hole in one of their cherished dogmas, they might be willing to ask themselves what else they are possibly wrong about. The first chink in my Evangelical armor came when I determined the Bible was not inerrant and infallible. I asked myself, “If I am wrong about the nature and history of the Bible,” what else I am wrong about?” As I learned, virtually every theological belief I had as an Evangelical pastor was intellectually lacking or not as theologically certain as my pastors and professors led me to believe. Did these men of God lie to me? Probably not. Like me, they were products of the religious environment and culture they grew up in. You can only teach and preach what you think you know, and that was likely the case for these men.
Sadly, many Evangelicals I interact with will not be moved off their Fundamentalist beliefs. They know in whom they have believed; they know what they know, end of discussion. Unfortunately, few of them seem to understand what they don’t know.
Have you ever had an Evangelical tell you, “We are just going to have to agree to disagree?” I have, more times than I can count. This is their way ending conversations; a dodge as they prepare to claim victory while actually suffering defeat.
Last week, a local Evangelical man in his thirties posted a meme that said, “Jesus is King” on a few Facebook groups I follow. I typically ignore religious voyeurism, but on this post, I decided to click the laughing emoji; my passive-aggressive way of saying your comment is bullshit.
As you might have guessed, I infuriated the poster. How dare I attack him and criticize his beliefs. He got all this from a laughing emoji? Amazing discernment, right? I took a few moments to explain the difference to him between respecting people and respecting beliefs. He ignored me. I generally respect people regardless of their religious and political beliefs. I do make exceptions for Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, Franklin Graham, James Dobson, and others of their vile, disgusting ilk. Outside of these degenerates, I generally respect other people. I do not, however, respect their beliefs. If you drag your beliefs into the public square or try to evangelize me for your cause, I am going to push back.
I don’t let people off the hook with the “We are going to have to agree to disagree” cop-out. Beliefs matter. Beliefs have consequences. The beliefs of others can negatively affect my life and the lives of those I love. So, no, I am not going to treat your beliefs with undeserved respect. And when you tell me, “We are going to have to agree to disagree, ” I will take that as you admitting defeat. Running to the house of faith is what people do when they lack evidence and argumentation for their beliefs. I won’t follow them into their “safe space,” but I will be waiting for them when they return to the battlefield.
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Most people would agree that they desire purpose, meaning, and happiness in their lives. While these terms can and are defined and used in various ways, I think it is safe to say that most of us want to live a good life while on this mortal coil.
Sadly, millions of Evangelicals believe that only Jesus gives them meaning, purpose, and happiness in their lives. Without Jesus, their lives have no value. Without Jesus, they are but brute sinners deserving eternal punishment and suffering in a lake filled with fire and brimstone. This is what they are told by Evangelical preachers, anyway. Congregants are reminded that their existence depends on Jesus — the second person in the Godhead. They are reminded that most humans are headed for a Christless Hell; that atheists, agnostics, humanists, Buddhists, Muslims, pagans, and others live aimless, helpless, hopeless lives on their slog towards eternity. Never mind the fact that how these people live their lives are repudiations of Evangelical lies about them. Evidence suggests that unbelievers can and do have happy, fulfilling lives without Jesus. Making their own purpose and meaning in life, non-Evangelicals live life on their own terms, often understanding that the journey is far more important than the destination. When gaining Heaven or avoiding Hell is no longer the grand objective, it’s amazing how much more satisfying life can become.
As a certified atheist and humanist, I struggle greatly every day of my life. There’s no escaping pain, suffering, and death, so while I am among the living, I intend to live life to its fullest, even if “fullest” means some days brushing my teeth, eating a bit, and resting. Every day I hope to write, but all the hope in the world doesn’t change the suffering that often keeps my pen in the proverbial inkwell. Thus, living life to its fullest, for me, is on any given day, is doing what I can. Anyone who struggles with chronic pain and suffering understands where I am coming from. To loosely quote the Bible, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Years ago, my Independent Fundamentalist Baptist mother-in-law would tell me that I just needed to put mind over matter. I would bristle when she said such nonsense. My partner eventually got her mother to understand that when I said things like “I can’t” or “I need to rest” or “my pain is off the charts today” or “I’m too nauseous to eat” I was stating the fact of the matter. When I can’t, I can’t. That should be enough for people, but sometimes the people closest to you think if they just cheer you up or encourage you to do more, that you will suddenly arise from near death and clear your to-do list. This, of course, is fanciful, and, at times, hurtful thinking.
At whatever point I find myself in life, I try to live a meaningful life. I recognize and understand that I am on the short side of life. Death stalks me, reminding me that before I know it, I will be his. I long ago determined that I would not quietly go into the dark night. I will do what I can, write what I can, trying to be the best possible person I can possibly be. It matters how we die, so I want to die openly and honestly. cherishing every moment until that day comes. To suggest that my life has no meaning, purpose, or happiness is not only absurd, it’s offensive. I have never said such a thing to a person. If you need Jesus, religion, or the church to make it through life, fine. I don’t give a shit. Just leave me alone. I don’t need Jesus, your religion, and or your club. Why is it that Evangelicals rarely, if ever, grant me the same space to freely live my life? Instead, they feel obligated to tell me how worthless I am or how I will soon spend eternity being tortured by God.To what end, I ask? I know all I need to know about Evangelical Christianity. I know what the Bible says about me. I don’t need believers to remind me of these things. Few Evangelicals seem willing to live and let people live, content to let non-Christians live their lives on their own terms. Surely, this is not too much to ask.
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
For those of us who drank deeply from the Evangelical well, we heard a lot of talk about Heaven — the place saved Evangelicals go after they die. Preacher after preacher, including myself when I entered the ministry in the 1970s, said that this life was preparation to meet God. We were told to focus on the important stuff: going to church, reading the Bible, praying, tithing, witnessing. These practices were meant to draw us closer to Jesus in preparation for the day we when draw our last breath and enter the pearly gates to meet Jesus face to face.
According to Revelation 21:1-5 says:
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them and be their God; he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away.”And the one who was seated on the throne said, “See, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
Evangelicals will interpret these verses various ways, but the gist is that there is coming a day when every Christian, either through death or rapture, will be carried away to Heaven. This will be a glorious day, no more tears; no more death; no more mourning, crying, and pain. God himself says, “I am making ALL things new.” Most Evangelicals think God will make a new Heaven and a new earth. The former earth and universe will either be destroyed or renovated by fire. Christians will live in the New Jerusalem. No darkness, no night. Jesus is the light of the city. Sounds like an awesome place, right? No more pain really appeals to me, but then I think about the other things that go with an eternity in Heaven, and I quickly say, ‘No thanks, Jesus.” Bruce, aren’t you willing to “believe” if it means no more pain? No.
I have come to understand that we believe what we believe. We don’t choose our beliefs, as if, through libertarian free will, we “choose” whether to believe in Jesus. This is patently untrue, even if it “seems” differently to us. If you really believe we choose our beliefs, I ask you right now, Christians, to CHOOSE to be an atheist. Come on, you can do it! Come to the dark side. The weather is nice, the beer is cheap, and the company is awesome. Couldn’t choose? Why is that? We only believe that which convinces us. We evaluate evidence, and somewhere along the line we become convinced of one or more propositions, and we believe. I will believe in Jesus Christ the day I become convinced that the Christian gospel and the central claims of Christianity are true.
Two other questions remain for me:
Who will live in Heaven with us?
What will we do in Heaven for thirty trillion years?
According to Evangelicals, ONLY born-again people will live in Heaven after death. No Jews. No Muslims. No Buddhists. And certainly no agnostics, atheists, humanists, or pagans. Only Evangelicals need apply. This means that born again Jeffrey Dahmer — a serial killer who ate his victims — will be in Heaven, but moral, ethical atheists will be in Hell. That’s some fucked up thinking, is it not? Worse, think about spending eternity with the likes of fine Christians such as Revival Fires, Jaisen, John, James, Steve, and Dr. David Tee. Can you imagine them being your neighbors for eternity? I wonder of there will be suicide in Heave? 🙂
However long eternity is, human beings will live on in either Heaven or Hell (actually the eternal Kingdom of God and the Lake of Fire). What will Evangelicals do for eternity in Heaven? Some Evangelicals believe that eternity will be spent in community in a new Heaven and Earth. Everything will be perfect. I have heard some fantastical sermons about Heaven over the years, most without Scriptural warrant. According to this view of Heaven, life will be one long party, maybe like Mardi Gras without the beads, boobs, and booze. Or maybe Jesus will tell Evangelicals, “Hey that stuff is okay! Let’s party, brothers and sisters.”
Another dominate view of Heaven is the idea that eternity will be one never-ending praise and worship service. Evangelicals will spend eternity like Baptist Catholics, kneeling, standing, kneeling, standing . . . and singing. Lots and lots of singing. Can you imagine listening to masturbatory praise songs ad nauseam for millions of years. Kill me now. 🙂
How do preachers sell this nonsense to congregants? They convince themselves that an eternity of worshipping a narcissistic deity is the price one must pay for Jesus saving them from their sins.Ugh, no thanks. I might be convinced of the party Heaven if we can move Revival Fires, Jaisen, John, James, Steve, and Dr. David Tee outside the city gates, never to be seen again. Or maybe they could be tasked with cleaning the sewers in Heaven. These giants of the faith have a lot of expertise in “shit,” so it shouldn’t be too hard to teach them to clean up in the next life what they refuse to clean up in this life.
The Evangelical Heaven doesn’t appeal to many of us. One life is sufficient, and we plan to live life to its fullest. Only one life, ‘twill soon be past, and then you are dead. Harsh? Sure, but nonetheless true. If you have evidence to the contrary, please leave it in the comment section.
Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
I recently asked the Gemini AI engine to critique this site. I was surprised by its largely accurate summation and critical commentary about my blog. Give it a read and let me know what you think.
Bruce Gerencser’s website, brucegerencser.net, titled The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser, is a prolific and highly personal blog centered on the author’s journey from 25 years as an Evangelical pastor to becoming a vocal humanist and atheist.
Critiquing the site involves looking at its content, its cultural role in the “Ex-Christian” community, and its reception by both supporters and detractors.
1. Narrative and Authority
The site’s primary strength is the credibility of the author’s background. Unlike many “New Atheist” writers who approach religion from a scientific or philosophical distance, Gerencser writes from the “inside out.”
The “Insider” Perspective: Because he spent decades pastoring Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) and other evangelical churches, he understands the lingo, the theological nuances, and the psychological pressures of the ministry. This makes his critiques of church culture particularly biting and difficult for believers to dismiss as “misunderstandings.”
Deconversion Journey: The site serves as a massive archive of deconversion. For readers going through “deconstruction,” his transparency about losing his faith, his career, and his social standing provides a sense of solidarity.
2. Tone and Style
The tone of the blog is often described as blunt, matter-of-fact, and occasionally combative.
Transparency: Gerencser is remarkably open about his personal life, including his health struggles (fibromyalgia and neurological issues), his family dynamics, and his local activism in Ohio. This creates a “long-form memoir” feel rather than just a collection of polemics.
Combative Engagement: He frequently publishes and responds to “hate mail” or “concerned” emails from Christians. While this is entertaining for his secular audience, it can create a “siege mentality” vibe on the site that may feel repetitive or overly hostile to a neutral observer.
Humor: He uses a dry, often sarcastic wit to highlight what he sees as the absurdities of fundamentalist dogma.
3. Content Themes
The blog is updated with high frequency and covers several core areas:
“Why I Left”: Exhaustive detailing of the theological and social reasons for his exit from Christianity.
Critique of Fundamentalism: He specifically targets the patriarchal structures, the “Once Saved Always Saved” doctrine, and the political entanglements of the modern American church.
The “Blacklist”: He often highlights stories of clerical abuse or hypocrisy, acting as a watchdog for the evangelical community.
Humanism: In his later years, the site has moved more toward promoting a positive secular humanist worldview—focusing on living well in “the only life we have.”
4. Critical Reception
The site is a polarizing space, viewed very differently depending on the reader’s worldview:
From the Secular/Ex-Christian Perspective: It is praised as a therapeutic resource. Many find his writing to be a “lifeline” for people who feel isolated in religious communities. He is seen as a “brave” figure who sacrificed his livelihood for his integrity.
From the Christian Perspective: He is often labeled an “apostate” or a “false convert.” A common critique from Calvinists or fundamentalists is that he “never truly knew God,” a claim Gerencser frequently mocks by pointing to his decades of “on-fire” service. Some find his tone “angry” or “bitter,” though his supporters argue that this anger is a justified response to the harm caused by religious institutions.
Theological Critique: Scholars or formal apologists might find his arguments more rhetorical than academic. While he cites experts like Bart Ehrman, his blog is more about the experience of religion than a systematic philosophical treatise.
5. Layout and Accessibility
Volume: The sheer amount of content (thousands of posts) can be overwhelming. While it is well-categorized into series (e.g., “Dear Evangelical,” “Why I Hate Jesus”), a new visitor might find it difficult to know where to start.
Community: The comment sections are active and moderated, serving as a rare “town square” where atheists and theists actually interact, though these interactions are often heated.
Summary
BruceGerencser.net is less of a formal news site and more of a living document of a life transformed. It is an essential read for anyone interested in the “Ex-vangelical” movement or the psychology of deconversion. Its primary value lies in its raw honesty and its refusal to “play nice” with the institutions the author believes are harmful, even if that approach makes the site a lightning rod for controversy.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
This cookie is set by X to identify and track the website visitor. Registers if a users is signed in the X platform and collects information about ad preferences.
2 years
personalization_id
Unique value with which users can be identified by X. Collected information is used to be personalize X services, including X trends, stories, ads and suggestions.
2 years
external_referer
Our Website uses X buttons to allow our visitors to follow our promotional X feeds, and sometimes embed feeds on our Website.
