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!

Just playing devil's advocate here (pardon the pun!)

What if heaven and hell are real?

What if it's all true?

If that's the case, surely it's not abusive to tell people about it?

I think OP's post is based on the assumption that none of it is real. But what if it is?

It wouldn't be...but then god would be the abusive one!... "Love and worship me or suffer for eternity!"

I've come to the conclusion that the evangelical God is such a coercive gaslighting monster that even if he was real, and even if I was risking an eternal Hell, I wouldn't worship him because he doesn't deserve it.

Maybe the reason you can’t reconcile the old and New Testament is that they’re the Gods of different religions.

Martin Luther did say that but failed to recognise it's not a priest who forgives us in reconciliation anyway- it's Jesus. I'm not meaning you have to agree by the way, just that as a Catholic Martin Luther doesn't really have much weight on my feelings about it.

But I do appreciate your question and you make a good point. So we sit to listen to readings from the OT as it foreshadows what we see in the NT. There is a correlation but we view it through fresh eyes is the best way I think to describe it.
We stand to listen to the Gospel as it is the word of the Lord and deserves a different level of respect in that sense. It is also why the Gospel is only read by the priest or deacon, but the OT readings and Psalm can be read by anyone.
Sorry if that's just more confusing! I'm on holiday at the moment and trying to type while the kids are occupied here at the beach 😄

One of the key points of religious literacy: religious groups are internally diverse. You could have an evangelical church with a hundred people and have more than a hundred reasons for being there and opinions on any topic, including hell.

Yes, some evangelical branches have the eternal hellfire torture as theological concept, though they are hardly unique in that. Both religious and secular Biblical scholars have debated for centuries whether that's a Biblical concept. Soul destruction comes up far more often and much of the imagery of eternal hell comes from later sources.

Some evangelical power structures are inherently abusive at this time. Another key point of religious literacy is that religious groups change over time and space. The Southern Baptist Convention of the 1970s has very different principles to the SBC of the 2020s. Today, the power structure is inherently abusive as it incentivises abuse - they were a major target of #metoochurch and #emptythepews movements a decade or so ago, the latter being a coming together evangelicals and exvangelicals discussing the topic of religious abuse protected by evangelical group organisations, obviously not something evangelical groups have been alone in doing though they've gotten less attention compared to some larger religious organisations. That doesn't mean that all churches or ministers under it are abusive though, and really, their perception of hell isn't really what makes them that way. I think just using the belief in an eternal hell as a way to determine which Christian branches incentivise abuse is a major oversimplification.

It is worth noting that there are lots of different approaches to church or ‘churchmanship’ the approach you mention would be more towards the high church approach, and very unlikely to be the evangelical church as being discussed here… there is no biblical reason as to why you would only have the gospel read by a priest or deacon and no evangelical church that I know would ever do that - any member of the congregation would can read well will do the reading… an evangelical church is also less likely to have OT / NT / Psalm read (or sung!) but more likely to simply have read the passage linked to the sermon - the difference can be quite stark - an evangelical church will almost always have a sermon based on a passage and often sets of Sundays or a series going through a book of the Bible / linked topic… always though the sermon will tie into the passage as everything is referenced against the Bible. Some other churches will split it far more and follow a set of readings such as those listed by the Church of England - and then the sermon may pick up on one of those or at the other end of the scale be simply a homily- with no link to or reference to the Bible at all…

one of the core concepts of the evangelical church is that Bible focus, so it becomes the central aspect of the service with the songs / hymns being chosen to fit in, the Bible passage and the sermon all linking, in many churches that same passage will be the focus for mid week Bible groups to look at as well… It is through Jesus and the Bible that we learn about God, so in building a personal relationship with God, time worshipping him / reading his word is very important…

Jehovah is an ancient god. In Semitic pantheons he was included there. He was subordinate to the great god El. El had a wife called Astarte. Then over time El was replaced by Jehovah as top god, with Astarte by his side as his wife. Then the Jehovah followers decided to ditch her. So now we have monotheism.

Well, I guess that’s the point. The Old Testament co- opted Canaanite Gods, the Gods of a Yahweh cult (arguably the god changed part way through the OT) but then it was largely a bringing together of various myths in part. It’s not really that cohesive.

By the time Jesus came along this had morphed into a cohesive religion. But did Jesus mean the same thing as God as the Rabbis?

it’s interesting when you look a Ishtar how she was replicated in nearly all the main religions/cultures of the eastern med but she disappeared with the Abrahamic faiths. Undoubtedly the Abrahamic faiths have systematically targeted and put down women. It is a shameful history (and current problem in many areas of Abrahamic religions) that has not be adequately addressed.

@akkakk

"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..."

except... your Christian beliefs on Sola Fides are derived from a much later interpretation of the Bible, which is not Biblical, and was not the understanding of early Christians in the Church (some taught directly by the disciples) who wrote extensively on the teachings passed on to them and on the writings of the New Testament.

James 2:20–26 (ESV): Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; ...24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone....26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

What you talk about in your post is one interpretation of Christianity that can be traced to after the Reformation and into later years ... but not believed by early Christians.
The same goes for Sola Scriptura, Literal translation of the bible, Jesus instituting the Church, Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, assurance of salvation, once saved always saved, election of individuals to heaven (and so others to hell), the Eucharist ... etc etc.

This is an unfortunate "feature" of Christianity .. that some Christians judge other Christians as not being Christians based on their own "personal" belief and the belief that this comes from their own "personal" relationship with God.

Presenting your view as fact and absolute truth does cast a shadow on your posts.... and I believe is not helpful to Christainity as a whole.

I am not quite sure where you are going with that - the passage in James doesn't contradict - but expands...

Jesus is very clear - believe and you are saved - simple and clear.

James expands on what it means to believe - there are those who think that Jesus words mean - that as long as you say (like reciting a catechism) I believe then it is a magic spell which gives salvation - and clearly that is an inaccurate interpretation - real belief is life changing and transformational - as a result of that belief you will see the faith worked out through what the person does - you will see their relationship with Jesus showing through how they live / what they do.

So a protestation of faith without any evidence through how they live is clearly not a real faith - it is words, not belief.

But at no point does James change what Jesus said and say that you somehow need to complete a checklist (e.g. faith + 10 out 20 of these works etc.) - he very clearly says that you can see the faith through the actions... but as Jesus says - it is faith which takes us through judgement into God's presence.