I’m really sorry it felt so upsetting — that’s not something to dismiss lightly. But can I gently ask: what exactly was said that felt misogynistic or hell-focused? Tone and emphasis matter a great deal, and it can help to distinguish between the message itself and how it was delivered.
Biblically speaking, Christianity doesn’t deny love, kindness or beauty — those flow from the gospel, not in spite of it. But the Christian message also begins with honesty about sin, because without that, love and hope lose their meaning. The Bible’s claim is not “you are terrible”, but “something has gone wrong with all of us — and God has come to rescue us”.
Genesis 3:16, for example, is not God endorsing patriarchy or misogyny. It is describing the damage sin does to human relationships after the Fall. That damage is precisely what Jesus comes to undo. From the Gospels onwards, Christ repeatedly restores dignity to women, confronts abuse of power, and exposes religious hypocrisy (John 4; Luke 7; Matthew 23).
When churches speak about sin or judgement, at their best it isn’t hellfire for its own sake. Jesus himself spoke about judgement because he loved people and wanted them to turn and live (Luke 13:3; John 3:17). The message of Christmas is that God does not stand at a distance condemning the world — he enters it, takes on flesh, and offers forgiveness, healing and new life.
So the real question isn’t whether love or sin should be preached, but whether Christ was clearly preached. The Christian hope is not moral improvement or fear, but grace: “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).
If that centre was missing, then the service failed in an important way. But if Christ, repentance and grace were present — even if clumsily or painfully communicated — that may be closer to historic Christianity than a message that avoids sin altogether.
Thank you for raising it. These are important conversations, and Christians should be willing to examine whether we are truly reflecting the heart of Christ.