Every year or two, I ask readers to submit questions they want me to answer. That time has arrived once again. Any question. Any subject. Please leave your questions in the comment section or send them to me via email. I will try to answer them in the order received.
I look forward to reading and answering your questions.
Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, continues to write posts about me and my British friend, Ben Berwick. I have largely ignored him. Thiessen is a rabid Fundamentalist, and at his advanced age, it is unlikely that anything will move him away from Bible literalism and young earth creationism. He is not interested in debate, argument, or discussion. He is convinced that he is one hundred percent right, and that atheists, agnostics, liberal Christians, and other people he deems “unsaved,” are one hundred percent wrong. Thiessen has no room for question, doubt, or nuance. As a true-blue Fundamentalist, everything to him is black and white. So, I no longer try to reason with Thiessen. I have kicked the dust off my sandals and left him to his own devices.
I do, however, want to respond to a post Thiessen wrote yesterday titled I Have a Question. As you will see, Thiessen really doesn’t have any questions to ask me. He just wants to attack my person and besmirch my character. I will be the better man and answer him anyway.
All spelling and grammar in the original.
BG [Bruce Gerencser] may say that we are not banned on his website but we are not going to post there and give him the opportunity to ban us. We will address any information we glean from his website here. That way nothing can be edited or changed on us.
Thiessen is NOT banned from commenting on this site. Any assertion that suggests otherwise is a lie. Thiessen is free to comment any time he wants. I have also offered to debate him. I have even offered to publish a guest post of his. He claims that he is afraid to do so because I might edit or change his words. I have told him several times I will publish exactly what he writes — unedited. I will even leave his misspellings and grammar errors as is. Come on Derrick, time to man up.
Currently, he has this annual theme where he allows his readers to ask him any question they want. it goes under the same title heading above – I have a question- and I guess he selects the ones he will answer.
Note that Thiessen tries to suggest that I pick and choose which questions to answer. This, of course, is untrue. I answer every question I receive, even from him and his bunkmate Revival Fires.
Question One: Why does a guy with nothing to offer keep posting ‘his’ story which hasn’t changed in 10 or 11 years?
As you can see, Thiessen makes a value judgment: a guy with nothing to offer. I am a guy who has nothing to offer closed-minded Fundamentalists like him. It seems thousands of other people disagree with him; people who found value and support from my writing. I know my work is not for everyone, so why doesn’t Thiessen stop reading it and mosey on his way? If certain foods constipate you or aggravate your hemorrhoids, change your diet. Instead, Derrick would rather bitch about how much his anus hurts.
I suspect I have a lot more of my story to tell, even from my Christian days. Unlike Thiessen, my life continues to move forward, and as I continue to walk this path called life, I will have new and varied experiences. And when I do, I will write about them. I am a story-teller, Thiessen is not. He chooses, instead, to preach, teach, and rage. And that’s fine, but there’s no reason for him to criticize me for choosing a different path.
My story is not the only subject for my writing. I write about sports, politics, humanism, atheism, cooking, chronic illness, chronic pain, the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church movement, Evangelicalism, and a plethora of other subjects. And even if I did ONLY write about my story, what’s wrong with that? Every blog has a niche, Thiessen’s included.
His previous answer to us was ‘he wanted people to know his story’. Yet, he could have done that in one website page or one post. However, he keeps repeating the same thing over and over, and over, as if no one has read it before.
I have explained this to Thiessen several times, so I can only conclude that he is being deliberately obtuse. A majority of readers on any given day are new. They don’t know my story, so as a good writer, I believe it is incumbent upon me to share with them who I am, who I was, what I believe, and where I’m headed. Yes, regular readers know my story, but most first-time readers don’t. I make no apology for making sure people know my storyline.
Thiessen shares nothing about his past and present life. He hides from accountability and responsibility in the Philippines, not letting anyone see and know the man he really is. Again, this is his choice, but I shouldn’t be faulted for choosing another path.
Thiessen must live a boring, uneventful life if it fits on a single website page or blog post. I have had an interesting life, filled with all sorts of experiences. Take my short stories series. I am sitting on over a hundred short story draft posts I have not published. I enjoy telling stories, and I plan to tell a lot more of them in the months and years ahead. Hopefully, many of these stories will be published in book form.
The obvious answer is that he is a narcissist and wants everyone to think he is a victim. His continuous reference to ‘his story’ makes his content useless, boring, and out of touch. He needs the attention.
Now Thiessen makes things personal, asserting without evidence that I am a narcissist and a victim. I will leave it to others to decide whether I am a narcissist, but as far as being a victim is concerned, I have faced a lot of trauma in my life. In a clinical sense, I am a victim, a survivor. Should I ignore these experiences in my life? I choose to use them to fuel my passion and help other people. My therapist tells me that my continued writing is essential to managing my depression.
Thiessen expresses his feelings when he says my writing is useless, boring, and out of touch. He is entitled to his opinions, but my email inbox and social media messages suggest that a lot of people find my work useful, engaging, and relevant. That Thiessen doesn’t is his problem, not mine.
Question Two: Why does he keep beating a dead horse?
The “dead horse” Thiessen speaks of is any subject I write about that he disagrees with. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Thiessen writes about the same subjects over, and over, and over. Again, he is free to do so. But why is Thiessen so obsessed with policing the content on another creator’s website. This would be like me telling the writers at Science-Based Medicine that they are beating a dead horse. All they talk about is science and medicine. Duh, right. I read their writing because it especially deals with these subjects. I don’t go to their site to find information on Evangelical Christianity. They have a wheelhouse, as do I. I talk about what I know. Too bad Thiessen doesn’t do the same.
Question Three: Why do you continually make yourself look bad?
This is a question about his black-collar series. As we have talked about this before, it does not make BG look like a saint for his reporting of these arrests. Actually, it makes him look bad as he piles on those unfortunate souls as well as rubbing it in their and their families’ faces.
Those types of postings are not making BG look good. It makes him look like some hate-filled person who does not have an ounce of sympathy, forgiveness, or kindness in him. One reason for that is because he is rifling through law enforcement and news outlet files to get the information LONG AFTER the ‘crimes’ have been committed.
He is not helping anyone but he does look vindictive and mean-spirited in his actions. he also looks void of any love and compassion as love does not rejoice in evil. He is rejoicing as he gets clicks when he posts those articles.
Thiessen wants me to “care” and “love” these predators. Give me a fucking break. I’ll tell you who I care for: the children they molest and rape; the church women they take sexual advantage of; the teens they seduce and assault; the church people whom they steal from and take advantage of. My care and love is reserved for the victims and the families of predators. The criminals themselves? I want to see them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I want to make sure they never, ever pastor a church or have an opportunity to harm people again.
Thiessen, on the other hand, thinks these perverts should be forgiven and restored to the ministry. How sick is that? I have often wondered why he is so anti-victim. What’s the story behind his support of sexual deviants, while at the same time deriding their victims?
As long as preachers continue preying on innocent, vulnerable children, teens, and adults, I plan to continue publishing the Black Collar Crime Series.
It will be interesting to see what his responses will be. He won’t be allowed to post them here. So hopefully we will get a pingback.
Thiessen refuses to let anyone comment on his blog. He also has disabled his contact page. He is immune from criticism and accountability. Nothing I can do about that.
I have sufficiently answered Thiessen’s comments. I am sure he will object to my answers, which he is free to do. As always, I will leave it to readers to weigh the worthiness and value of my writing. Thiessen not liking it is a badge of honor.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Every study I have read in the past decade suggests that atheism and agnosticism are on the rise; that nones — those who are indifferent towards religion are on the rise; that Christianity in the United States is in decline, as evidenced by shrinking membership, Sunday attendance, and income. As it stands today, non-believers are the largest religious demographic in the U.S. Christianity is on its way to becoming a minority religion.
Bill Muehlenberg, an Evangelical Christian who blogs at Culture Watch, is ignorantly or deliberately oblivious to these facts. According to him, atheism has lost its luster and is in decline. Worse, an increasing number of atheists are converting to Christianity, or, at the very least, confessing belief in God.
Who are these atheists who have left godlessness for religion?
Albert Henry Ross (1881-1950)
John Warwick Montgomery (1931-)
Josh McDowell (1939-)
Antony Flew (1923-2010)
C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)
Whittaker Chambers (1901-1961)
Malcolm Muggeridge (1902-1990)
Peter Hitchens (1951-)
Mortimer J. Adler (1902-2001)
William J. Murray (1946-)
Lee Strobel (1952-)
Ayaan Hirsi Ali (1969-)
Alister McGrath (1953-)
Rosaria Butterfield (1962-)
Josh Timonen (formerly worked for Richard Dawkins)
Color me grossly underwhelmed. What we have here is a list of Christian apologists (some of whom have sketchy conversion stories, alleged conversion stories that contradict Muhlenberg’s Evangelical Christianity, and people who lived using the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Where are all the present-day atheists who converted to Christianity? I guarantee you that there are a lot more notable, public theists deconverting than atheists are becoming Christians. It happens, but not often, and when it does, those who embrace Christianity do so for emotional, and not intellectual reasons.
As can be seen, most of these folks were/are noted public figures. Not only were they all either atheists or agnostics, but quite a few were also Marxists, Communists or socialists as well. I might add that I too was once not only a firm agnostic but a young revolutionary and socialist.
….
The list I have offered in this piece is very short indeed. Many more names could have been mentioned. And I also could have discussed some leading public figures who all seem quite close to becoming Christians – or perhaps already have – people such as Jordan Peterson, Tom Holland, Douglas Murray, Russell Brand and many more.
God is clearly not dead. Many atheists are however. Or they have seen the light and left their former darkness.
Muhlenberg intimates that Christopher Hitchens was “open” to Christianity before he died and may even converted, relying on Alex Taunton’s screed, The Faith of Christopher Hitchens.
Taunton’s book attracted some media attention and Taunton was interviewed on Newsnight on BBC Two alongside Lawrence Krauss who strongly criticized the book and alleged Taunton was a “paid associate” and not a friend of Hitchens. He also suggested Hitchens’ widow was “disgusted” by the book. The Faith of Christopher Hitchens received a mixed critical reception. Nick Cohen, a friend of Hitchens, was strongly critical of the book in The Guardian. Cohen described it as “strange, spiteful”, the “work of a true fanatic”. Cohen is critical of the several attacks made by Taunton on friends of Hitchens. Cohen also wrote that “In a section that is tasteless even by his low standards, he ridicules Christopher’s father, Eric, as a weak man, because his failure to discipline his children ‘contributed to his son’s unbelief'” and wrote that the “willingness of believers to go further and invent conversions where none existed satisfies their infantile need for fairytale endings…they move from the extremely seedy to the outright creepy: from vultures to vampires.”
Also in The GuardianMatthew d’Ancona depicted the book as “meretricious” and as the latest example of falsified deathbed conversion stories. He also wrote that whilst it is “tempting to write off this book as outburst of epic self-deception” d’Ancona wrote that “its craven purpose – to claim Hitchens posthumously for evangelical Christianity – is to defame a man who was a champion of the Enlightenment” and an enemy of all religion. David Frum, writing in The Atlantic, stated that “In the months before he died, Hitchens repeatedly and emphatically warned that claims like Taunton’s would be forthcoming and should be disbelieved.” and that “Taunton mistakes curiosity for assent.”
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, Bill. What atheism may yet become is unknown, but it is clear that atheists are not going away or dying off. Atheism, as a movement, is evolving and maturing. The field has been cleared of theist arguments for the existence of God, so atheists have moved on to more pressing issues such as the separation of church and state, Christian nationalism, and other assaults on liberty and freedom. Talking about the Kalam argument, the argument from design, the ontological argument, and others is passé these days. Been there, done that, these arguments fail every time.
Try harder, Bill, try harder.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
It is not support for competing non-Jewish states such as Iran and other Muslim countries.
It is not demanding a free, equal, UN-recognized state for Palestinians.
It is not demanding all illegal Israeli settlements be removed from Palestinian territory.
I am sure readers can come up with other things that are not anti-Semitism, yet people who voice them are often called anti-Semites.
Anti-Semites are hostile to, prejudiced towards, or they discriminate against Jews. I do none of these things. I do, however, oppose Israel’s war against the Palestinian people, the building of settlements on Palestinian land, and the United States continued financial support of Israel’s military. I support calls for disinvestment from Israel and the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state. Holding these positions does not make me an anti-Semite. Zionists and Christian Fundamentalists who think the Bible prophesies the establishment of the state of Israel who continue to call me an anti-Semite do so out of either ignorance or deliberate attempts to smear and denigrate anyone who opposes Israel’s political policies and military violence.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Every year or two, I ask readers to submit questions they want me to answer. That time has arrived once again. Any question. Any subject. Please leave your questions in the comment section or send them to me via email. I will try to answer them in the order received.
I look forward to reading and answering your questions.
Long-time reader Geoff asked:
How do you feel the ‘argument from reason’ is going? YouTube is awash with atheist presenters, much of it pretty poor, but there’s a core of really convincing channels, very moderate in approach, and with ever-increasing subscribers. I’m thinking especially of the likes of Genetically Modified Skeptik, Alex O’Connor Cosmic Skeptik, and Rationality Rules. Previously Matt Dillahunty and Atheist Experience was perhaps the main source, but Dillahunty’s abrasive style and the awful quality of the phone-ins surely put many people off, and there was certainly little in the way of developing nuanced arguments.
Anyhow, I feel that the argument from reason is now so overwhelmingly in favour of the atheist case that I feel apologetics is almost dead in the water, but perhaps it’s simply that I’m immersed at ‘the wrong end of the pool’. What do you think?
Go to YouTube these days and you will find a plethora of atheist creators putting out content that challenges Christianity, using philosophical and scientific arguments to do so. YouTubers such as Alex O’Connor, Steven Woodford, Drew McCoy, Matt Dillahunty, and others are well-schooled in philosophy and the various arguments for the existence of God and other arguments used to justify Christian belief. I thoroughly enjoy their videos, although I have reached a similar point to Geoff, that there are no more new arguments to be made; that much like Samson slaying 1,000 Philistines with the jawbone of an ass, these defenders of rationality, skepticism, and reason have slayed virtually every argument used by Evangelical and Catholic apologists to defend the existence of God and the claims of Christianity.
If I have one point of criticism of these atheists it is this: when it comes to theology and the Biblical text itself, they often display a shallow or Fundamentalist understanding of what the Bible says and what Christians really believe. Some of them just regurgitate what they have heard other atheists say, while others lack sufficient education to have complex, informed discussions about the Biblical text and Christianity. Sometimes, I will email them when they make glaring errors, hoping to educate them on the subject in question. Unfortunately, I have yet to have one of them respond to me. If you are going to make content deconstructing what it is that Christians believe, it would be helpful if you actually KNOW what they believe. And Christians are just as bad. They can be woefully ignorant about the Bible and its teachings, and when it comes to church history, ignorance is the norm.
There indeed is a lot of atheist-created content on YouTube and TikTok. Juvenile, elementary-level critiques — long on rhetoric and ridicule — can be found everywhere on social media. I used to challenge such things, but I gave up. Some of the creators are in the “angry atheist” phase of life, so I know that no amount of calm, rational criticism will change their minds. It takes time for wounds to heal.
Have atheists won the day? Perhaps, but there’s still a place for well-spoken, thoughtful atheists to produce content for public consumption. As I have pondered starting a podcast (I know, I know, I have been pondering for so long we are in a new decade) I ask myself, “What can I add to the discussions that atheists and Christians might find helpful?” My thought as of today — subject to change — is to start a podcast that specifically focuses on the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church movement. There’s very little content on this subject, and since my expertise lies here, I thought the IFB might be a worthy subject of a new podcast. While I can intelligently discuss the existence of God and I have a rudimentary understanding of science, a philosopher and scientist (in an educated sense) I am not. I know what I know, and I certainly know what I don’t.
I deconverted sixteen years ago. Since then, I have interacted with countless Christians, especially Evangelicals. It has been years since I have heard a new or original argument for the existence of God and the nature of the Biblical text. I am far less patient these days due to having to answer the same questions, arguments, and challenges over and over and over again. It does get old after a while. I suspect some of the creators mentioned above will one day reach a similar place. Contrary to what Evangelical apologists say, the Bible is not an inexhaustive book. Eventually, there’s nothing more to say on the matter.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Every year or two, I ask readers to submit questions they want me to answer. That time has arrived once again. Any question. Any subject. Please leave your questions in the comment section or send them to me via email. I will try to answer them in the order received.
I look forward to reading and answering your questions.
A reader recently asked:
Do you have a good relationship with all of your kids? Did any of them ever express resentment or say they’re damaged from being raised IFB (due to fear of hell, sexism, homophobia, general shame, etc)? Do you think it’s possible to still spend time with family members who are still hardcore believers when you’re raising your own kid differently without it damaging your kid?
My partner, Polly, and I have six adult children, ages 45, 43, 40, 35, 33, and 31 (on their next birthday). Four of our children are married or living in committed relationships. We have sixteen grandchildren, ranging in age from five to twenty-three. By all accounts, both Polly and I have good relationships with our children and their families. All of our children live within twenty minutes of our home in Ney. Some of them we see once or more every week. For others, it may be a few weeks between visits. Regardless, both Polly and I think we are close to our children and their families. Whether our children think the same, you would have to ask them. As a man who is largely homebound due to chronic illness and pain, I would love to see my children, their spouses, and grandchildren more often. I recognize they have their own lives, jobs, and responsibilities, but I do yearn for more visits and interaction, as does Polly.
What constitutes a “good relationship” depends on the parties involved. I have different experiences and relationships with each of my children. How they view me as their father is theirs to share. As far as I know, my children love and respect me. Over the past two weeks, I have seen all our children — save son #2; and he and I have stayed in contact via texts. On Sunday, our youngest daughter and her three children came over for lunch, as did our oldest son and two of his three children. He and our oldest grandson, Levi, cleaned out our gutters and unplugged the downspouts. Our youngest son mows our grass every week, and then stays for dinner. Last night, I talked with son #3 about a family problem he was having. We spoke for an hour.
Our family is close, and always willing to help us when needed. And we do the same for them. Could we be closer? Sure. Does our family have unresolved conflict or trauma? Sure, as ALL families do. That said, if you really want to know how our children view their relationships with Mom and Dad, you will have to ask them. I cannot and will not speak for them.
This reader also asked, “Did any of them ever express resentment or say they’re damaged from being raised IFB?”
Not towards their parents. They understand why we were IFB and Mom and Dad were devout Evangelical Christians. They don’t blame us as much as they do the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church movement itself. They know we were products of lifelong conditioning and indoctrination. As far as resentment is concerned, I have never sensed resentment from any of our children. The Gerencser family is quite stoic, living “live and let live” lives. Do we talk about the past? Sure. Are apologies made and regrets shared? Yes.
Our children, except Bethany — our oldest daughter with Down syndrome — own their own homes and live on their own. If one of them were a hardcore Fundamentalist Christian, could I still have a good relationship with him or her? I’d like to think so. However, I know sects such as the IFB are exclusionary, reactionary, and narrow-minded. This means that we might not be able to openly and frankly talk with them about certain things. Knowing this, I would do everything in my power to have a good relationship with them. Polly and I deconverted seventeen years ago. Our family remains close,
Our family is far from perfect, but I wouldn’t trade them for all the money in the world.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
The Black Collar Crime Series relies on public news stories and publicly available information for its content. If any incorrect information is found, please contact Bruce Gerencser. Nothing in this post should be construed as an accusation of guilt. Those accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty.
Keith Holt, former assistant pastor (or fill-in pastor) of House of Prayer Church in Blackwell, Oklahoma, and his wife, Candy, stand accused of child abuse and neglect.
Keith Lynn Holt, 57, and Candy Denise Holt, 53, both of Blackwell, are scheduled to appear in Kay County District Court on March 1.
Keith, a former assistant pastor at House of Prayer Church in Blackwell, is facing three felony counts of child abuse and one count of child neglect, while his wife Candy, is facing three felony charges of enabling child abuse and one charge of child neglect.
The pair were arrested by Blackwell police on Jan. 17. (see story)
Police report in the affidavit that the couple were arrested following an investigation that started with the Department of Human Services.
DHS workers report in the affidavit that they received a report that the couple went to Arkansas and left eight children ranging from ages two to 17 home alone.
Officials report they went to the residence and found an adult friend checking on the juveniles.
The next day, Jan. 12, officials returned to the home and made contact with the Holts. The couple reportedly admitted that they went to Arkansas to attend a funeral.
During an investigation, they reportedly stated that the kids have items taken away for punishment and claimed that they do not spank the children. They explained that the two of the teens are biological children of Keith, three of the children are Candy’s nieces and nephews, and that three of the juveniles were left to them in a will.
On Jan. 14, DHS workers report that they received photos showing the 14-year-old with bruising on her face and a video of a juvenile male stating that Keith had punched him and thrown him down the stairs.
After receiving the information, DHS and a police officer went to the home two times. But no one answered.
On Jan. 16, officials returned and Candy answered the door.
A representative of the Dearing House interviewed one of the teens.
The teen’s arms and legs were reportedly covered in bruises. She claimed that Keith hits her with a board. The teen reportedly retrieved a 28-inch-long board from behind the television. The board was reportedly just over two inches wide and about an inch thick.
The teen was interviewed by a Dearing House official. During the interview she reportedly removed her make up, revealing bruising around her left eye.
She alleged that Keith would hit the juveniles with a belt and or the board and would start at the waist and work his way down.
She claimed that Keith threw one of the teens down the stairs and that the couple locked one of the teens in a bathroom for three days with out food or water. The teen said she was able to sneak some crackers and water to the juvenile.
Another teen was interviewed and claimed that Candy does nothing around the house. The teen reportedly said she is responsible for taking care of the three small children and that Keith whipped her on her legs for not having their clothes picked out. The teen reportedly said she was the one locked in the bathroom because the Holt’s believed that she said they were bad parents. The teen reportedly told officials that one time she received 30 swats with the belt from Keith and that he has switched to the board. She claimed that one time Keith swatted one of the females 40 times with the board because Candy couldn’t find her make up and believed the teen took it.
The juvenile male in the video reportedly denied making the tape.
Another juvenile male reportedly told officials that the Holt’s do not hit him because he threatened to hit them back. He backed up allegations made by the other teens.
Another juvenile male reportedly also backed up the claims made by the others and said that the couple leave him alone because he can’t control his anger and that he will hurt them.
The couple were arrested and questioned at the Blackwell police station.
Chief Jay Brewer reports that Candy stated that the kids are honest and that if they said something happened, she believes them. She reportedly spoke of an incident in which Keith spanked one of the juveniles with a belt 16 times and that she had to stop him. She reportedly denied being present for beatings and denied knowing about the teen locked in the bathroom.
Brewer reports that Keith stated that the kids are trustworthy and don’t lie. He reportedly initially denied hitting any of the juveniles since moving to Blackwell but reportedly changed his story. He reportedly admitted to hitting one of the juveniles two times on the buttocks with the board. He claimed that he only whips the children on the buttocks and not the legs and reportedly admitted that he never checked to see of he left bruises on the kids. He reportedly said that it is possible that he hits them so much he doesn’t remember each incident.
Brewer reports that Holt said that he might black out and doesn’t know how many times he hits them.
He reportedly claimed the kids must by lying but doesn’t know what their motivation would be. Holt also reportedly denied locking a teen in a bathroom for three days but admitted that there is a lock outside the upstairs bathroom door.
The couple are being held in the county jail on $100,000 bond and defense attorney Jarrod Stevenson has been appointed to the case.
House of Prayer pastor John Jack released the following statement:
The Blackwell House of Prayer rebukes all statements and actions carried out by Keith Holt. The Bible speaks against child abuse or any mistreatment of children, and we stand firmly by that. The House of Prayer was also never made aware by these children of any indication that this was being carried out.
Really, Pastor Jack? Not one person ever saw a bruise or injury on these children? Never?
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
The Republican Party is pretty much a monoculture, with little, if any diversity, among its members. Thanks to the influence of fascist, criminally-indicted former president Donald Trump, MAGA (Make America Great Again) policies dominate and control the Republican Party. I suspect there are more than a few Republican politicians who personally despise Trump and the MAGA wing of the Party, but they know that without Trump’s and MAGA’s support, they can’t win. These spineless Republicans know that just one social media post from Trump can sink their election/reelection chances. So they say nothing when Trump espouses policies that are not only hateful, racist, and anti-democratic, they pretend the man is not a narcissist and pathological liar. (All politicians lie, but Trump lies multiple times every day, eight days a week.)
There was a time when the Democratic Party was considered a big-tent political group, but some within the Party are now demanding loyalty to President Joe Biden and any and every policy deemed “Democratic.” Granted, the Democrats don’t have people such as Marjorie “Moscow” Taylor-Green, Matt “Child Molester” Gaetz, Tom Cotton, Ted “Cancun” Cruz, Paul “Nazi” Gosar, Lauren “Hand Job” Boebert, and Josh “The Cowardly Lion” Hawley demanding fealty under pains of political execution, there are those within the Democratic Party who marginalize and denigrate those who dare hold positions contrary to those of the Biden Administration. Democrats such as John Fetterman, Jon Tester, Joe Manchin, Bernie Sanders, and The Squad (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Presley, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, Greg Casar, Summer Lee, and Delia Ramirez) face increasing pressure from mainstream and centrist Democrats to toe the party line. For example, I oppose John Fetterman’s pro-Israel view, but I reject the notion that Fetterman is not a “real” Democrat.
Joe Biden needs the various factions within the Democratic Party to vote for him if he hopes to win the 2024 presidential election. Disparaging and marginalizing pro-Palestinian, anti-war, socialist, or pro-environment Democrats is a sure way to drive these voters to the open arms of the campaigns of Robert Kennedy, Jr., Cornel West, and Jill Stein (or could lead to protest votes for Marianne Williamson). Young voters, in particular, are more likely to be anti-war, pro-environment, and have socialist tendencies. Pretending these people don’t exist will only ensure that Biden goes down to defeat in November. Young voters may not have much real-world experience, but they know hypocrisy when they see it. They “hear” the pathetic challenges from Biden and his feckless cabinet to Israel’s genocidal slaughter of over 34,000 Palestinians in Gaza, while, at the same time, seeing the President and Democrats in Congress give Israel $18 billion to continue its immoral war. These young folks make, as they should, a direct connection between U.S.-funded and supplied bombs, bullets, drones, and missiles and daily reports of bloodshed, violence, and death in Gaza. They see the mutilated bodies of Palestinian children and know that the United States is directly responsible for their deaths.
I am a member of the local Democratic Party’s executive committee. I was elected to this position in March. I made it clear to Party leaders that while I am a proud Democrat, I have policy positions that run contrary to that of the Defiance County and State Democratic Party. I made sure they understood that I was an atheist; a humanist; a pacifist; and a socialist. They knew or should have known, anyway, that I am an outspoken writer who uses this blog and letters to the editor of the local newspaper to advance my cause. I will gladly support the Democratic Party at every level, but I will not silence my voice just to give the Party the appearance of MAGA-like unity. I grew up in a home with a mother who spoke her mind on political issues; and who was unafraid to voice her opinion in public forums. I continue to follow in her footsteps — thirty plus years after her suicide — albeit from the other side of the political aisle.
The Democratic Party has my support, but it does not have my loyalty. I refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance because it is a loyalty pledge. I am grateful to be an American. I can’t imagine living in any other place than in the good ole USA. That said, I reject demands of political conformity and fealty. Nations and governments come and go. My objective is to work towards making the United States a better place to live. Most of all, I want my six children and sixteen grandchildren to have promising, prosperous, happy futures. When Democratic (or Republican) policies meet my desires and expectations, they can count on my support. When they don’t, the Democratic Party can expect to hear from me. Demands for Party loyalty will be rejected. If the Party’s tent is not big enough for someone like me, that’s their loss, not mine. I will do all I can to promote and advance Democratic policies and candidates, but what I will not do is abandon my political beliefs just so the Party can present to the public a facade of unity. Political debate and diversity are important for the health of the Democratic Party. The moment I’m told to be quiet or tone down my opinions or rhetoric is when I (and scores of other like-minded people) exit the tent.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Ask a Christian for the reason most Americans are Christian and you will likely get some sort of theological explanation, complete with a personal testimony of faith in Jesus Christ. However, is this the reason most Americans are Christians? Is it really all about theology and relationship?
Perhaps there is another explanation.
First, the United States is a Christian nation. Not a Christian nation like theocrats think we are, but Christian nonetheless. Christianity permeates our being as a people. Christian church buildings are everywhere. Our government leaders are overwhelmingly Christian and freely use language that reflects their Christian heritage. Christianity is on full display everywhere we look. We are, indeed, a Christian nation.
Second, there is a cultural form of Christianity that saturates virtually every aspect of our society. Country singers win awards for songs about cheating on a spouse and they thank the Christian God for winning the award. Boxers and MMA fighters beat the shit out of one another and then thank the Christian God for the strength to do what they do. Prayers are uttered at sporting events, players give testimonies to faith in Jesus, and the Christian God is given all the credit for their success. One need not look very hard in America to find Jesus.
Cultural Christianity is all about what people say and not what they do. This is the predominant form of Christianity in America. When asked, do you believe in the Christian God? most Americans will say, Yes! It does not matter how they live or even if they understand Christian doctrine. They believe, and that’s all that matters.
It is this Christian world into which every American child is born. While my wife and I can point to the various conversion encounters we had, we still would have been Christians even without the conversion experiences. Our culture was Christian, our families were Christian, everyone around us was Christian. How could we have been anything BUT Christian?
Practicing Christians have a hard time accepting this. They KNOW the place and time Jesus saved them. They KNOW when they were baptized, confirmed, dedicated, saved, or whatever term their sect uses to connote belief in the Christian God. It’s hard for them to accept that their faith is culturally and socially driven.
Why are most people in Muslim countries Muslim? Why are most people in Buddhist countries Buddhist? Simple. People generally embrace the dominant religion and practice of their culture and tribe; and so it is in America.
It is culture and tribe, and not a conversion experience, that determines a person’s religious affiliation. The conversion experiences are the eggs the Christian chicken lays. Evangelicals, in particular, have built their entire house on the foundation of each person having a personal salvation experience. However, looking at this from a sociological perspective, it can be seen that a culture’s dominant religion affects which religion a person embraces more than any other factor.
Over the course of my life, I have lived in Ohio, Michigan, Texas, Arizona, and California. Every place I lived had its own cultural idiosyncrasies. Let me share a couple of stories with you that illustrate this.
Here in Northwest Ohio, local convenience stores have one or two rows of Dr. Pepper in their coolers. Pepsi and Coke are the dominant brands. When I lived in Elmendorf, Texas, just outside of San Antonio, I would regularly go to the Conoco gas station and buy a bottle of pop. The dominant pop in the cooler was Dr. Pepper. There would be numerous rows of Dr. Pepper and only a couple of rows for Pepsi and Coke. Big Red was another favorite pop and it also had more space in the cooler than Pepsi. Why? Culture.
When I left the church in Elmendorf and moved back to Ohio, I kept in touch with a Hispanic family in the church. They eventually moved to Ohio to be a part of the church I was pastoring. I warned them that they were moving to an area where Anglos dominate the culture. There are no stores here with the foods, vegetables, and fresh tortillas that Hispanics in San Antonio can easily buy at the local HEB grocery store. I did my best to make certain they understood these things.
With great anticipation and excitement, they moved to Ohio. And, two months later, discouraged and depressed, they moved back to San Antonio. Reason? Culture. The differences between the two cultures were too great. Even though they convinced themselves they could adapt, the differences were so vast that it would have required them to stop doing things they had done their entire lives. Such drastic change is hard, if not impossible.
I pastored a Baptist church in Southeast Ohio for eleven years. Appalachian culture dominates the area. I found a huge cultural difference between Northwest and Southeast Ohio. While only 200 miles separate them, the cultures are very different from one another.
One day, a church member brought us a bag of green peppers. He said, Here are some mangos for you from my garden. Mangos? A mango is a fruit that grows on trees. I thought, why is this guy calling green peppers “mangos?” A short time later, we went to the grocery store in nearby Zanesville. As we strolled through the produce section, we noticed the green peppers. The sign above them said “mangos.” Why? Culture.
Culture affects how we live, how we talk, what we eat, and what we do for entertainment. It affects every aspect of our lives. Why should matters of religion be exempt from the influence of culture?
I am an atheist, but I know that my moral and ethical values have been shaped by the culture in which I grew up. I have no problem admitting that some of my moral beliefs come from my Christian upbringing. Growing up in a poor family shaped how I view things such as poverty, welfare, and the place of government in our day-to-day lives. Culture and environment have largely made me who I am today. Even though I am now a godless heathen, I still like some of the trappings of my Christian past. I love listening to Southern gospel music. I enjoy listening to Third Day and other Christian rock groups. I don’t believe one word of the lyrics, but there is something about the music that appeals to me. It is familiar to me, as are many of the other cultural peculiarities by which I am surrounded.
How about you? What cultural peculiarities do you see where you live? How has the Christian culture of America shaped and affected your life?
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
[This post is about] how many believers try to marry secular science to the Holy Bible.
….
One is written by a holy and divine God who knows how everything came to be. The other is filled with lies, and misinformation, and does not have the Spirit of Truth guiding it. In fact, the latter of the two have kicked God out of the science lab and excluded him from all of their work.
….
The only way for science and the Bible can be compatible, is if the former humbles itself and repents of its sins, and accept Christ as its savior. There is no other way for the two to work together. Secular and bad Christian science only corrupts the revelations of the Bible and keeps the truth from people who need it.
When secular science repents and becomes Christian, then lets God and the Spirit of Truth back into the science labs, classrooms, and so on, then the light of Jesus can shine so that all can see the truth.
Secular science does not have the truth because it is not guided by the Spirit of Truth. It is guided by the deceit and lies from evil. There is no way to yoke the biblical truths to secular science until the latter accepts the biblical truth and Jesus as its savior.
The Bible is never wrong.
— TheologyArcheology: A Site for the Promotion of Scientific and Biblical Ignorance, Unequally Yoked, April 22, 2024
Christians in the Middle East are being persecuted for their faith. ISIS has slaughtered thousands of Christians and Muslims, all because they had the wrong religious belief. Shameless Evangelical preachers and right-wing politicians have used these killings as an opportunity to provoke fear in their followers. These preachers of fear live in a delusional world where being required to bake a cake for a gay couple or giving the same civil rights to LGBTQ people as to heterosexuals is the equivalent of having your head lopped off by ISIS. American Evangelical Christians have a persecution complex, stoked by horror stories about the atheist, secularist, humanistic, socialist horde taking over THEIR country. (Please see The Paranoia and Persecution Complex of the Religious Right.) With great mockery and ridicule, I laugh at American Christians who think they are being persecuted. Those who promote such things deserve the disdain dished out to them by both the religious and non-religious.
That said, the beheading of Christians in the Middle East has American Christians asking if they would be willing to suffer and die for the cause of Christ. Billy Watkins, a Christian and a writer for The Clarion-Ledger had this to say:
I can’t explain why.
Perhaps it doesn’t require an explanation.
But as the calendar quickly moved toward today — Easter Sunday — the more an image flashed in my mind: 20 Egyptian Christians and one other man, forced to their knees on a Mediterranean beach by members of ISIS on Feb. 15 and asked one by one if they believed in Jesus Christ.
Each answered yes, knowing the consequences.
All 21 were beheaded….
…It made me look inside myself, perhaps deeper than I’ve ever looked before.
It made me face the question: If I were in a similar situation, would I have the faith and the courage to look the ISIS cowards in the eye and say, “I believe in Jesus Christ.”
Knowing those would be the last words I ever said. Knowing the torture I was about to experience. Knowing my family and friends would grieve over my death. Knowing this life, which I can only comprehend as a struggling human, would end.
I would like to say yes, I would have the strength.
But do any of us really know until we are put in that situation?
To help me have some comparison for my struggle with this, I reached out to eight friends.
I asked them how they pictured themselves answering that question with a knife to their throats.
Some answered by email, others by Facebook message. Each provided food for thought. And I must commend them for digging deep inside their souls to help provide their answers.
One of the first I received: “This is very hard. I have tears. No, I am crying … I want to scream yes to those butchers. I believe in Jesus Christ!!!! But when I think of never seeing my husband, my family, my grandchildren, my grandchildren to come, I have to pause. More tears … ”
Friend No. 2 wrote, “I believe each Christian would always be ready to say, ‘Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.’ However, after watching two beheadings on YouTube, it gave me pause for thought. How could I possibly endure torture and a painful, slow death for my beliefs? My next thought was, ‘But that’s what Jesus did for me. Would he expect any less of me?’ ”
Friend No. 3: “There is a peace I believe God gives you in that situation. Just as Jesus prayed in the garden, twice, to let this cup pass from his wrath … I might say the same prayer, but in the end I would submit to God’s plan.”
Friend No. 4: “This is, of course, an impossible question to answer. Under the circumstances, I cannot imagine what I would do … it is always easier to sit in your living room and be convinced of your own virtues under the proposed circumstance. I also know I can rationalize decisions and I can waffle between what I want I know to be true … I could see this part of me rationalizing that it’s more important for me to live for any or all of the following …” My friend named his wife, children, extended family and church.
“I have so much to live for that lying to people who want to kill me is easily excused … (But) the scenario you describe is no time for rationalizing. It is a test … I hope I would get it … I want to be counted among those who would forgo this life for the better eternity to come.”
“Last point,” he wrote. “Hearing about the death of these 21 men has mattered to me — and not for the reason the killers wanted. It encourages me to live a life worthy of my calling. They died for Christ. May I at least live for him?”
Friend No. 5 wrote, “In facing a gruesome, wicked, evil death, my faith would still be in God. I hope and trust that such a painful ordeal would be ultimately redeemed and used by God for his purposes. Therefore, such a death is not in vain.”
Friend No. 6 was equally sure of his answer: “Faith is all you have left in that situation. To reject your faith would leave you with nothing — even if you lived. I can say unequivocally I would not reject my belief in Christ. If I did, I would be dead even though I lived. The other thing I know is that I would not die passively. I would fight with all my being. I would not let them dictate the terms of my death.”
Friend No. 7: “When you reach the most terrifyingly vulnerable moment of your life, you’re stripped to nothing but the things no can take away … the core beliefs that have driven every decision you’ve ever made. Ultimately, I would rather die outwardly professing my faith, with my death serving as a testament to those beliefs …
“But then I think of my child, of helping teach him those beliefs … If being a coward and lying to save my life means I’ll have the opportunity to raise a Godly man, so be it … Maybe this isn’t the right answer. But doing the right thing often means forgoing interests of the present so you can protect interests of the future.”
Friend No. 8: “Thomas Babington Macaulay wrote, ‘And how can a man die better than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods?’
“This world doesn’t afford many civilians the chance to die well for something that matters … it sounds cavalier, but I would be humbled and honored to be put in a situation where I had to choose between my life and the one thing that means most to me — my faith in Jesus Christ … I have a passion for this world, and ultimately the honestly amazing and blessed life that I’ve been given.
“I believe if he brings us to that place of choice, he gives us the grace to handle it if we remember that he is the ultimate source of everything … it’s not the end, it’s the beginning … let me go how he would take me, and let his will be done.”
This is what I believe: If I were put in that situation, I believe Jesus Christ would bathe me with a peace beyond human comprehension…
Those of us who were once Christians have asked the questions that Billy Watkins asks in his article. If it came to it, would we have been willing to die for Christ? Having grown up in a religious culture where persecution was touted as a sure sign of one’s faith, I had moments when I questioned whether I would stand up for Christ no matter what happened. Preaching on the street brought me into contact with people who wanted to do me bodily harm. One man deliberately aimed his truck at me, hoping to run me over. Over the corner curb he came, hoping to silence the Baptist street preacher. Fortunately, he missed.
In the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is required reading. Written in 1563 by John Foxe, the book is “a polemical account of the sufferings of Protestants under the Catholic Church, with particular emphasis on England and Scotland.” The first edition of the book was titled “Actes and Monuments of these Latter and Perillous Days, Touching Matters of the Church.”
Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is often used to prove that true Christians have always been persecuted for their faith. If the book was made into a movie, many modern-day Evangelicals would refuse to watch it due to its violence and gore.
After the Bible itself, no book so profoundly influenced early Protestant sentiment as the Book of Martyrs. Even in our time it is still a living force. It is more than a record of persecution. It is an arsenal of controversy, a storehouse of romance, as well as a source of edification.
These days, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs is not widely read outside of Evangelical, Baptist, Fundamentalist, Amish, and Mennonite circles. Part of the reason for this is because John Foxe’s credibility has been called into question. Wikipedia states:
The author’s credibility was challenged as soon as the book first appeared. Detractors accused Foxe of dealing falsely with the evidence, of misusing documents, and of telling partial truths. In every case that he could clarify, Foxe corrected errors in the second edition and third and fourth, final version (for him). In the early nineteenth century, the charges were taken up again by a number of authors, most importantly Samuel Roffey Maitland. Subsequently, Foxe was considered a poor historian, in mainstream reference works. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica accused Foxe of “wilful falsification of evidence”; two years later in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Francis Fortescue Urquhart wrote of the value of the documentary content and eyewitness reports, but claimed that Foxe “sometimes dishonestly mutilates his documents and is quite untrustworthy in his treatment of evidence”.
In contrast, J. F. Mozley maintained that Foxe preserved a high standard of honesty, arguing that Foxe’s method of using his sources “proclaims the honest man, the sincere seeker after truth. “The 2009 Encyclopædia Britannica notes that Foxe’s work is “factually detailed and preserves much firsthand material on the English Reformation unobtainable elsewhere.” It was typical, however, in the late nineteenth and early decades of the twentieth centuries to treat Foxe’s text as “not to be trusted….If not the father of lies, Foxe was thought to be the master of inventions, and so readers of the Encyclopedia [sic] Britannica were advised and warned.”
Foxe based his accounts of martyrs before the early modern period on previous writers, including Eusebius, Bede, Matthew Paris, and many others. He compiled an English martyrology from the period of the Lollards through to the persecution of Protestants by Mary I. Here Foxe had primary sources to draw on: episcopal registers, reports of trials, and the testimony of eyewitnesses. In the work of collection Foxe had Henry Bull as collaborator. The account of the Marian years is based on Robert Crowley’s 1559 extension of a 1549 chronicle history by Thomas Cooper, itself an extension of a work begun by Thomas Lanuet. Cooper (who became a Church of England Bishop) strongly objected to Crowley’s version of his history and soon issued two new “correct” editions. John Bale set Foxe onto martyrological writings and contributed to a substantial part of Foxe’s ideas as well as printed material.
Foxe’s book is in no sense an impartial account of the period. He did not hold to later centuries’ notions of neutrality or objectivity, but made unambiguous side glosses on his text, such as “Mark the apish pageants of these popelings” and “This answer smelleth of forging and crafty packing.” David Loades has suggested that Foxe’s history of the political situation, at least, is ‘remarkably objective’. He makes no attempt to make martyrs out of Wyatt and his followers, or anyone else who was executed for treason, except George Eagles, whom he describes as falsely accused.”
Sidney Lee, in the Dictionary of National Biography, called Foxe “a passionate advocate, ready to accept any primâ facie evidence”. Lee also listed some specific errors and suggested that John Foxe plagiarized. Thomas S. Freeman observes that, like a hypothetical barrister, Foxe had to deal with the evidence of what actually happened, evidence that he was rarely in a position to forge. But he would not present facts damaging to his client, and he had the skills that enabled him to arrange the evidence so as to make it conform to what he wanted it to say. Like the barrister, Foxe presents crucial evidence and tells a side of the story which must be heard, but his text should never be read uncritically, and his partisan objectives should always be kept in mind.”
By the end of the 17th century, however, the work tended to be abbreviated to include only ‘the most sensational episodes of torture and death’ thus giving to Foxe’s work ‘a lurid quality which was certainly far from the author’s intention’…
…Acts and Monuments was cannibalized for material to warn of the dangers of Papistry and, in Foxe’s name, also to undermine resurgent High Church Anglicanism. The author’s credibility and the text’s reliability became suspect, then, for both Catholic and Anglican Church defenders. Samuel Roffey Maitland, Richard Frederick Littledale as well as Robert Parsons and John Milner, mounted campaigns to disprove Foxe’s findings. Maitland’s and others’ critiques helped to awaken increasing antagonism toward intolerance in the public conscience. Combined with professionalized academic dissociation, left no voices to speak in Foxe’s defence, and reduced Foxe’s historical credibility such that “no one with any literary pretensions…ventured to quote Foxe as an authority.” John Milner, defender of the “old religion” (Catholicism), authored several tracts, pamphlets, essays, and Letters to the Editor: “Dear Sir…”; using all public means available to him for declaring that abuse of Englishmen was occurring “frequently”, ipso edem, the defamation and harassment of Catholics in England – a treatment not similarly visited on Sectarian communities or the Quakers.
Milner’s life project to discredit ‘Foxe’ was polemical—that was the point of arguing: to persuade people to see things as the speaker constructed or, at least, to seeing some merit to his case. Before the Houses of Parliament in the years of Milner’s and others activism, were bills for relieving English Catholics of tax penalties (for being Catholic), having to tithe to the Anglican Church, and relief from imposition of the Oath that stood between any Catholic and a government position.
While it is true that Christians throughout the 2,000-year history of the church have been martyred, it is also true that martyrdom stories have been grossly exaggerated, often little more than hagiography. Catholic scholar Candida Moss, former professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame, took a careful look at early Christian martyr stories in her book The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom. (You can read my review of The Myth of Persecution here) Here’s an excerpt from my 2013 review:
…While Moss admits that Christians were persecuted on and off throughout the first 300 years of church history, she thoroughly debunks the claim that Christians were always persecuted. In fact, many of the instances of persecution were actually prosecutions…
…Throughout the book, Moss details how many of the source documents for the stories about Christian martyrs were embellished, and, at times, fabricated out of thin air. Even some of the saints revered by the Catholic church have histories that call into question their authenticity. I was quite surprised and delighted that Moss, a professor at a Catholic university, did not shy away from the controversies surrounding the mythic stories of the Catholic church.
Moss also details how some of the ancient martyr stories were actually borrowed from other cultures and religious traditions. There were times when I thought Moss was stretching these connections a bit, but I found the chapter, Borrowing of Jewish and Pagan Traditions, to be quite fascinating…
While Billy Watkins ponders whether he would be willing to lay his neck on the line for Jesus, I want to ponder the notion of a God who asks his followers to die for him. While most of us can readily understand dying for the sake of family or trying to help our fellow man, what are we to make of a religion and a God that puts great value on dying for one’s faith? While Christians will likely say that their martyrdom allows them to give a final testimony to God’s love and grace, I do wonder about a God who could save someone from having their head chopped off and does nothing. What would we think of a man who stood by while his wife or children were violently attacked and killed? Dying for one’s family is recognized by all to be a heroic act. But, dying for a religious belief? Wouldn’t lying and living be better than telling the truth and dying? Unlike the Muslim, the Christian martyr receives no special reward for dying. Why die when you can live?
At the heart of this discussion is the way Christians are conditioned to accept martyrdom. Church members are regaled with stories of Christians dying for their faith. Pastors preach inspiring sermons about the martyrdom stories in the Bible, complete with modern-day illustrations of Christians dying for their faith. Christians are reminded of the greatest martyr of all time, Jesus. If Jesus willingly died for us, shouldn’t we be willing to die for him? says the local Baptist preacher. And all God’s people said, AMEN!
I wonder if these stories would be enthusiastically believed if church members found out many of them are lies or half-truths? Pastors remind their flocks that True Christians® must be willing to die for their faith. These pro-martyrdom pastors subtly suggest that a person who cowers when faced with martyrdom should not expect forgiveness or a home in Heaven when they die. God is the giver and taker of life, and if he wants to have a Christian’s head lopped off, dare anyone object? The Apostle Paul made it clear that God has a right to do whatever he wants with the Christian’s life:
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Romans 9:20-21
Well, I object. There is no religious belief worth dying for. I question what kind of God would do such a thing to someone he calls his child? I know I would do everything in my power to keep my partner, children, and grandchildren from being harmed, even if it meant losing my own life. It seems quite perverse to me for a God or a religion to ask or demand someone’s death just so the world can see their faith. Wouldn’t LIVING by faith be a better testimony than DYING for faith?
What I have written here should not be taken as a dismissal of the persecution many Middle Eastern Christians face on a daily basis. I abhor all such killing and fully support efforts to put an end to needless bloodshed. The goal should be for everyone, regardless of belief, to worship freely without the threat of harm or death. The children of Abraham — Christianity, Islam, and Judaism — have histories soaked in the blood of their followers. Perhaps it is time for them to quit trying to subjugate one another. Perhaps it is time to put an end to jihads, crusades, and holy wars. Two thousand years of bloodshed lead me to believe that there must be a better way. Perhaps it is time for peaceful co-existence, leaving it to God to settle matters after death.
As an atheist, I am greatly troubled to see people give their lives for a religious belief. Knowing that the God they are dying for doesn’t exist, I am pained to see them sacrifice everything for nothing. We should weep when we see the young offered up to God as sweet-smelling sacrifices. Is such a God worthy of worship? I think not. Life is worth living, even if it means, in the moment, lying about one’s faith. Christians need to reorder their importance list, moving God down the list behind family. If death comes in protection of one’s loved ones, so be it. But to die for a religious belief, to satisfy the blood lust of the Christian God? Can we even fathom such an abhorrent demand? I know I can’t.
But Bruce, you are not a Christian. How dare you tell Christians what should be important to them! I am not doing so. I am, however, asking them to question their belief in a God who demands his followers be willing to die for him. I am asking them to reconsider what it is that is most important to them. If Christians are still willing to die for their faith/God, fine. But they should not expect me to rejoice over their death or understand their motives.
Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
