Aren't all evangelical churches spiritually abusive?

[harerunner]

....by their very nature!

Their whole message... heaven if you believe and obey, everlasting hell and torment if you dare not to, is surely spiritually abusive in itself. It's not just a pastor or two, it's the whole system!

I also think many Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Greek stories and symbols feed into the idea of the redemption on the cross
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/literature/isisandra.html

Although open to debate the meaning of the Ankh, in my opinion cannot be completely ignored in this story either

An interesting response - thank you.
I think it is probably helpful to separate out:

• Christianity the faith (based on the Bible / personal relationship with God / etc.
• Christianity the religion (man-made / the way the church has grown and added control / not of the Bible / etc.)

I refer to Christianity the faith - while most people would see Christianity as a religion - and there is absolutely a religion of that name, it is the one belief system which technically should not be a religion because we are not asked to take steps / jump through hoops / have structure etc. to 'get to the goal'. It is a faith because it is about belief / acceptance / repentance / relationship, not rules and regulations - Jesus was very clear that he came to replace those because they were not working - people (e.g. Pharisees) simply added to them and invented new ones, Judaism became a religion of ticking boxes which totally lost the point that God made us to be in relationship with him - so Jesus came to reset that and allow us access to God simply through repentance and accepting Jesus' death on the cross.

As such, Jesus' death removed the need for any task completion / box ticking / rule observation with a one-off moment when he died for us. We see in the gospel of John:

"16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."

real clarity around what Christianity is - in reductive form:

• God loved us all
• God gave up his son for us
• whoever believes shall not perish / will have eternal life / is not condemned

All that is required of us is to believe - as verse 18 confirms, whoever believes in him is not condemned - that is it, absolute and certain - believe - job done.

Every religion on the planet has more than that - it has rules and regulations to follow which mean that you achieve something - whether it is prayer or knowing scripture, or food rules, or giving of money - do xyz to get to heaven / equivalent. (The Christian religion - man made bits - may also have this, but that is not biblical, is not of God, is not a requirement).

The Christian faith quite simply is unique - it turns the concept on its head and says that God loves us so much that rather than expecting us to be able to do this - he chose to take the burden on himself and sent his son to die for us - i.e. instead of our paying the price by doing xyz - God wants a relationship with us so much that he paid that huge price for us all - once and forever.

With other religions - is there a question to ask - if their god wants us to be with him - why are barriers put in our way - you could argue it is to prove ourselves worthy, but no human could ever achieve that level, so all it does is help people to fail - but God isn't the same - He chooses to be in relationship with us and went literally to Hell and back to achieve it so that we don't have to do anything more than accept it

Furthermore, once we believe and accept Christ dying for us - there is arguably a whole New Testament telling us what to do (faith v works argument) - but yet again, Christianity is a topsy turvy 'religion' - rather than doing those things to be a Christian / stay a Christian - there is a real clarity that it is because we are a Christian and in relationship with God, we will want to do those things - so they are the natural outfall of walking every day with Jesus, rather than pre-cursors to being accepted by a God with a clipboard.

There have absolutely been those through history (and even today) who add their own rules onto Christianity (as you mention, buying indulgences / prayers / monetary gifts / etc. are all examples) - however none of that is Biblical, none of that is Christianity - despite people making that claim / using the Bible to find words out of context to support their desires / greed - the Bible has absolute clarity (from the above):

Whoever believes in him, is not condemned...

It really is that simple, that easy, that quick - genuine acceptance of Jesus's death, repentance of our previous life / sins - that gives us access to a relationship with God on earth and then for eternity in Heaven...

24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. (John 5:24)

another passage - confirming that all we need to do is hear and believe and we at that moment will no longer be judged, but now have eternal life, not will in the future cross over from death to life - but has crossed over - job done.

i.e.
say sorry
say thank you
say yes please

there is absolutely no other 'religion' which has that simple, that clear, that black and white an offer for eternal salvation (eternity in heaven as per the original OP's post) and which requires no actions from the individual other to believe and accept it...

Every religion on the planet has more than that

😂Sure. How you have time to research every religion on the planet and preach on mumsnet is beyond me.

i find antinomian beliefs, which is basically what you’re setting out in the context of interesting. Obviously this interpretation requires a particular reading of Matthew 5:17. Ie that fulfilling the Jewish law meant that it was no longer in play and the position you set out was the new world order when it came to worshiping the Abrahamic God.

Of course this view was rejected my many of the early theologians who considered Jesus had added to the law, the main argument being that he continued to follow Jewish Law and encouraged it ( this of course brings up more questions about Pauline Christianity in a slightly different way).

Interested in whether you only follow the 4 Gospels or any other books of the NT, esp those attributed to Paul, and how you square that circle with your views.

I think that anyone who selected simply the gospels from the bible would have a hard time claiming to be a christian...

but this is probably not the thread for what could become very interesting discussions - the OP's post was around salvation / eternity / heaven and the quotes above from John's gospel are the direct Christian answer to those questions.

Well actually I think it’s a very pertinent point. On the one hand you’re claiming effectively sola fide. And that the Jewish religion element can be set aside. Together with later theologian’s work in finding salvation - ie just refer to the 4 gospels

the on the other you’re stating that you need to go beyond the 4 gospels to find salvation. Yet say Paul’s work - arguably written by someone initiated into a Jewish mystic cult who went rouge and starting inviting in non-Jews is also relevant (even though he was arguable the one who started the “Christian religion”). When you say a Christian needs to look beyond the 4 Gospels, where do they need to look
for salvation?

If the OP is looking for salvation through Christ surely this is a fundamental point to clarify.

I think there is a misunderstanding here…
traditional Christian thinking would say that the message we see / Jesus in the gospels is a fulfilment of the earlier books (OT) and the epistles on go beyond that fulfilment into ‘so what now while still on earth’ or practical tips now you are a Christian - (obviously a seriously reductionist / simplified description) - so no Christian would take the gospels out of either context…

but the gospels also give an overview and quick entry point into understanding the Christian message and in particular the verses quoted above give ‘the Christian answer’ to the OP’s question

hence my focus for this thread on that aspect but of course they sit within the overall Bible…

Ah, so Paul’s interpretation of the rules, stating what Christian should believe and why is more important than the actual life of Jesus. Paul who never met Jesus, only hearing stories second had (at least) filtering everything through Jewish mysticism isn’t religion? He doesn’t appear to have any authority and is basically good at marketing

I think that you are now inventing things - you are fully aware that I am not saying that - so perhaps not a constructive discussion?

so what are you saying?

Enoch and Elijah were taken up to heaven, but not after they died. There are a few references in the Old Testament to Sheol, but it's difficult to know what that word meant. This is what one expert states:-

"If you actually look at what the Psalms say about Sheol, they always equate it to the grave or to the pit. And so it appears that the ancient Israelites simply thought that when you died, your body got buried someplace. It got put in a grave, or it got put in a pit, and that's what they called Sheol, is the place that your remains are. But it's not a place where you continue to exist afterwards."

What hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the political influence of Evangelicals. They are more numerous in America than Britain and many were given jobs in the State Department under Republican administrations. They had an influence on trafficking that has been harmful to many people in different parts of the world. Consider this from the Health Check radio show from 2 days ago:-

"The PEPFAR scheme was launched by George W Bush in 2003 to provide HIV and Aids relief around the world. Officials say it has since saved more than 25 million lives in 55 different countries. Now, though, its future could be under threat. With its funding due to expire at the end of September, some US Republicans are pushing for it not to be renewed because of alleged links to services providing abortions. Claudia Hammond is joined by professor of epidemiology at Boston University, Matt Fox, to look at what the outcome could mean for global Aids provision."

This fits in with what I have learned over the years about the influence of Evangelicals. They stop funding for any NGO that gives abortion advice or doesn't explicitly condemn all forms of prostitution.

There is an Evangelical NGO called International Justice Mission which has been involved in brothel raids in countries like Cambodia where the women either get deported or incarcerated in unpleasant conditions where they try to escape.

The State Department put pressure on the Japanese government to stop visas for large numbers of women from the Philippines. These women worked in the entertainment industry in Japan, most of them were not prostitutes and the few that were were not coerced into it. These 'anti-trafficking' measures harm women.

As mentioned before, you have to be very careful taking an organisation’s label and deriving assumptions or conclusions from it…

anyone can set up an organisation and claim to be any denomination / label / religion / etc. and then do whatever they want - there is no legal definition of evangelical nor any separate body with a remit to police the term…

in the UK is CEEC (Church of England Evangelical Council) which is theologically very sound so that can help identify organisations with good intent… other than that you need to look at policies and actions against the Bible and judge according to that…

Firstly, apologies for not responding to some thoughtful and lengthy posts made a while back. I've been very busy with stuff...

I was just starting to go through recent posts, but felt I had to comment on this:

We are told very clearly that all God's word is God inspired / breathed and that we are not to add to or remove from it

God inspired the Bible... Why? Because the Bible says it is inspired by God. This is surely circular reasoning at its most ludicrous!

Some of us on this thread were once in darkness and have seen a great light.

And yes, I mean those of us who have come away from evangelicalism.

@akkakk

You say nothing should be added or taken away from the Bible... but what Bible? By what authority have you and Protestant churches removed the Deuterocanonical books your Bibles?

The Bible....is not contradictory, inconsistent or hard to reconcile with a loving and equitable God.

🤔🤔🤔

I could spend the rest of the night quoting, but here a excerpt from the Book of Numbers, Chapter 31:

They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man.... (some names of people who were killed).... 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

This last verse needs repeating to hammer the point home....

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

And yet the Bible is supposedly not contradictory, inconsistent or hard to reconcile with a loving and equitable God!

I mean... wtaf.....words fail me.

That reminds me of something I just read about on wikipedia.

"After the death of Muhammad, the people of Yamama refused to pay the zakat (religious tax) to the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, as they did not recognize his authority. This resulted in the Ridda Wars, which the Banu Hanifa lost. The men were killed, and the women were taken to Medina as slaves, Khawla bint Ja'far among them."

You seem to be misunderstanding a couple of things, either intentionally or unintentionally I'm not sure.
Numbers is Old Testament, if you are going to quote scripture to make a point at least understand the defining differences between Old and New Testament.
Old Testament was written at a time when there were not many literate people, it was in many ways metaphorical for the time. So applying that to make your point doesn't really work. The Old Testament is full of sacrifice and all sorts that people then believed were necessary to please God. They got a lot mixed up because well, humans are imperfect and we know that (none of us are perfect).
The New Testament looks at God's decision to send his son as his real presence on Earth to remind us that love is what we need, he made that ultimate sacrifice to mirror the sacrifices of the Old Testament so that none of us have to. There is no need to make further sacrifices as he proved his love for us by making the ultimate sacrifice Himself.
By sacrificing Jesus he left us just one commandment- (which is "to love" if you're still unsure) It overrides the original Ten because ultimately they are all embodied within the commandment of Love. So Old Testament isn't really relevant in the same way in terms of quoting it UNLESS you see the OT as fact and do not accept Jesus as God and see him as only a prophet. OT has nothing to do with Christian belief in the way that you're suggesting given Christ didn't appear in it so I'm not sure why you're so determined to use it as your argument.... but by all means have at it.
And for the record quoting biblical verse doesn't win any arguments, we can all twist verse to illustrate any point we wish really. That's why our actions are important rather than solo scriptura.
By all means believe what you wish as is your right, but maybe steer clear of throwing biblical quotes around when you are unclear on the point you're making.

@traumallama
And for the record quoting biblical verse doesn't win any arguments, we can all twist verse to illustrate any point we wish really. That's why our actions are important rather than solo scriptura.
By all means believe what you wish as is your right, but maybe steer clear of throwing biblical quotes around when you are unclear on the point you're making.

Who is twisting verse? Christians have the Old Testament and the New Testament in their churches. Evangelicals quote from the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation more than most Christians. Are you saying that the Old Testament is false? That it can't tell us anything about what God is like, what he finds acceptable or not.

You say our actions are the important thing. I think Martin Luther would disagree with you on that one. Didn't he say we will be judged not on our works but on whether we are forgiven by God for our sins? His message was that we don't need a priest to forgive us.

@akkakk

"in the UK is CEEC (Church of England Evangelical Council) which is theologically very sound so that can help identify organisations with good intent… other than that you need to look at policies and actions against the Bible and judge according to that…"

It would be lovely if the CEEC could condemn IJM but I doubt it considering that Princess Eugenie endorses them. As for looking at policies in the light of the Bible I presume you mean the New Testament because as we have seen on this thread the Old Testament endorses rape.

Jesus didn't have much to say about sex but had a lot to say about money. So why do Evangelicals so obsessed by sex? Evangelicals turn to ‘alternative solutions’ if changes to doctrine on sexuality are made

@traumallama

You seem to be misunderstanding a couple of things, either intentionally or unintentionally I'm not sure.

I really don't think I'm misunderstanding anything.

@akkakk referenced the Bible... She didn't specify the New Testament. Indeed, she was adamant that we mustn't add or subtract anything to Scripture!

And whether or not the text I quoted was historical, allegorical or poetic; or some
mixture of styles, it hardly readily and easily supports the concept of an all-loving God, even in the context of the New Testament message.

@akkakk
"in the UK is CEEC (Church of England Evangelical Council) which is theologically very sound so that can help identify organisations with good intent… other than that you need to look at policies and actions against the Bible and judge according to that…"

I had a friend 20 years or so ago who judged policies and actions against the Bible... he became a Bible believing Jehovah's Witness, and believed mainstream Evangelicals misunderstood Scripture. 🤷‍♀️

Who's to say JW's are wrong and Evangelicals are right?!

And for the record quoting biblical verse doesn't win any arguments, we can all twist verse to illustrate any point we wish really. That's why our actions are important rather than solo scriptura. By all means believe what you wish as is your right, but maybe steer clear of throwing biblical quotes around when you are unclear on the point you're making.

My point was to take issue with the Bible being apparently easy to reconcile with an all-loving God. Surely you can see that such texts are not easy at all to reconcile with such an all-loving God. At least admit it's just a little bit difficult!

You can tell me that I need to understand that text in the context of the whole Bible... which is fair enough, but it doesn't change the fact that Old Testament is written in way that shows God condones the genocidal behaviour of his people... God even commands such killings in Deuteronomy and even admonishes them for not being sufficiently blood-thirsty in Psalms!

No amount of New Testament contextualising can white-wash this if you hold the belief that all Scripture is God-breathed etc (ie 2 Timothy 3:16).