Recently I was made aware of an article written by someone who claims she has been gaslighted by her church. This article begins with the author’s claiming “I don’t sleep through the night anymore. I suffer from near daily panic attacks and almost constant anxiety. The source of my joy, my security and my identity has vanished, leaving me with an angry grief that almost no one in my immediate circle understands.” She goes on to write she has been “manipulated, deceived and abused.” She claims the reason why she feels this way is because the, “church that raised me is gaslighting me.” She is a perfect example of what the late Charles “Krauthammer, [who] himself [was] a harsh critic of Trump, . . . defined [as] ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ [that is] Trump-induced ‘general hysteria’ among the chattering classes, producing an ‘inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and … signs of psychic pathology’ in the President’s behavior.”
No where in the article does she claim to look to God to relieve her anxiety, instead she writes, “I’ve diversified my bookshelf, podcast subscriptions and Twitter feed to include voices speaking truth to power from the perspective of marginalized people ― the same voices that the Trump administration continually tries to silence.” But the most revealing statement she makes is, “My hope is to someday find a local church again, one that is progressive, open and affirming, but I am not actively searching.”
She continues on to write about the “voices speaking truth to power,” writing, “Together we weep, we rage and we try to rebuild what’s left of our shattered spiritual lives. Healing is slow and it’s painful. I’m working hard to separate the true, worthy parts of Christianity from the bullshit.” I interpret this to mean she does not look to God as much as she does to others of likeminded persuasions. She writes about how they weep together, and together they try to rebuild their spiritual lives, but never mention any thought about turning to God for spiritual help. She uses the first person singular to describe her quest for the true parts of Christianity. Which leads me ask, just what are the unworthy parts of Christianity? Her moral high ground leads her to believe she should decide for herself which parts of Christianity are worthy.
Certainly the church she describes in this article does not convey the image of any church I know. Granted, there are extreme factions that will unfortunately reflect all that is claimed in this article, but they are the exception, not the rule. The author of this article may have indeed been “raised” in one of these churches, however the article more than implies that she is accusing all evangelical churches, not just those on the extreme.
Gaslighting is not an insignificant allegation. To accuse a church of gaslighting is very serious; it is to accuse the church of psychological manipulation. It is an allegation that should never be made against the people of God without absolute proof. It can rightly be considered an affront to God to accuse those called into ministry as people determined to manipulate someone so that he or she will “question one’s own feelings and perceptions of reality.” It most definitely should not be made as a general allegation which in effect accuses all who are labeled evangelicals. It is an irresponsible allegation that can lead many to believe they too should leave the church. It is dangerously close to the false teachers we are warned about in 2nd Peter.
Frankly, and sadly, a close evaluation of the article reveals that it is almost entirely made up of some favored talking points, underlined by a sense of moral superiority. She claims that her church practiced “systemic discrimination against people of color, LGBTQ people and people practicing religions other than Christianity, among other groups.” Again, that does not describe churches I know.
I do know some “Christians” that are biased, especially against the LGBTQ community, but they do not make up the majority. Yes, my church and many others, believe the LGBTQ lifestyle is contrary to biblical standards, but we have welcomed many who are from this community. In a blog post, written in 2015, I describe my feelings toward this community. In that post I argue that accepting the homosexual person must go deeper than simply saying we accept the sinner but not the sin.
The general church I am a member of makes a statement I feel is reflective of many churches across the United States. “The denomination’s official website states that, ‘The Church of the Nazarene believes that every man or woman should be treated with dignity, grace, and holy love, whatever their sexual orientation.’” This in no way characterizes the church like the one the author claims in her article as a church where “large portions of the population were outright rejected by the institution loving me so well.”
After making these general accusations the author then brings up President Trump. She writes that, “Trump’s campaign and election was a breaking point for me and many other American evangelicals. This was when we realized that everything we had been told was non-negotiable didn’t matter when there was power on the line. The election was like a floodlight on the underbelly of the evangelical church, and this is when the church started gaslighting me.” Again she generalizes, accusing the church of forsaking their biblical values, “in exchange for tax cuts, Supreme Court nominees and political power.”
I do not deny that President Trump has some moral issues. From the very beginning of his campaign I expressed my concern about his possible nomination to represent the Republicans in the 2016 election. I felt his character made him questionable as a nominee that Christians could, or even should support.
But then he was nominated by the Republicans, and he soon discovered the inevitabe; he would face Hillary Clinton in the November 2016 Presidential election. My dilemma at this point was undoubtedly the same many others faced. Do I compromise my moral values to vote for a man who had been accused of immoral behavior; seemingly even admitting to some behavior considered by many to be unacceptable? Or do I consider voting for a Democrat? To be honest that never was a real option for me. There is virtually nothing in the Democratic Platform that I feel I can support. For me, however, this dilemma caused a great deal of soul searching.
I could have escaped the dilemma altogether by just not voting for either nominee; maybe writing in someone. But it was not that simple. A write-in vote was equivalent to a vote for the other nominee, Hillary Clinton. Even though I, seemingly along with most other Americans, assumed she would probably win, I did not want to waste my vote, and thereby resign myself to her election. In my opinion, she had already proved herself to be less than a good moral leader.
My soul searching included the realization that there have been only a few Presidents in my lifetime who displayed a level of acceptable moral behavior. Certainly the Clintons did not uphold many values considered moral. Bill Clinton was forced to acknowledge that he essentially sexually abused one of his interns while President. This behavior eventually led to his impeachment. In the meantime his wife, Hillary Clinton, supported his immorality by condemning every woman who dared to accuse him of sexual abuse or assault. Obviously “believe all women” had not yet registered. It was that realization that convinced me to vote for Donald Trump. I still cringe at some of the things he “tweets,” but frankly none of his behavior since being sworn in as President comes close to the immoral behavior of the Clintons.
She condemns those who would, she believes, compromise their biblical values by supporting Trump. She writes, “Although I’ve lost the majority of my local Christian community, save for a few precious friends, I still cling to the true teachings and example of Jesus to inform my politics and moral code,” thus implying that we who continue in the church no longer cling to the true teachings of Jesus. Meanwhile, she only gives one sentence to President Clinton’s indiscretions while in office, and even then it was used to mock the church. In my opinion, if you condemn Trump’s rhetoric and alleged immoral conduct, but only give Clinton’s immoral behavior a passing comment, then you are not really as serious about your moral convictions as you are about disliking President Trump; it sounds more partisan than troubled.
To me she exemplifies a church goer who is always looking for what the church can do for her. Regrettably this is a trend among many Christians today. They go to church with the wrongful understanding that they are there to be served. They want the sermon to make them “feel” good about their life choices. They want the singing to make them “feel’ uplifted. They want the pastors and the people around them in church to be there for them. I’ve seen this happen at my own church way too often. If they don’t “feel” good, they leave. Some go to other churches, where they invariably leave as well; in search of that perfect church. I’ve seen others leave the church entirely, with the hope that someday the perfect church, the one that will completely support their behavior and ideals, will someday present itself. Sadly, the chances are, they will never find that church.
The problem with this way of thinking is that the church is not there for us as much as we should be there for the church. When Paul uses the analogy of the body, he is speaking of a church where everyone works together. No member of the body is there for the sole purpose of receiving from the other members. Each member works together, using their individual talents and strengths, to make up the well functioning body. We are there to serve, not to be served.
We are in a new age where it seems cultural adjustments are made on a daily basis. The adjustments come so quickly that there appears to be little time to assess the ramifications. Because of this there has arisen the very real danger of cultural decay. If we are in cultural decline, which I believe we are, it cannot be solely blamed on current events. Nor can it be blamed on one person, such as the President. The truth is that current events are the result of cultural decline, not its cause. A culture in decline is not going to be turned around by electing someone else to lead our nation. A decaying culture will likely elect someone less moral than the one they replaced.
We need to keep in mind “it is not the business of government, or the federal government, to cultivate virtue and to improve souls.” That is the responsibility of the Church. Jesus saves, but we must nurture. Leaving the church is not the answer. The church will never be changed by outside influences, especially if the church fears those influences are threatening their core values. It may be true that there are some hypocrites in any given church, but those who are hypocritical do not represent the true Church. If you feel your church has lost its moral compass you’ll only effect changes by being a part of a church. This truth is underscored by those who wrote the epistles of the New Testament. To complain about the church, using only your self proclaimed moral ideals, hints at a sense of moral superiority, and will only drive you further from the church, and further from God. In the meantime the church, you claim has left you, makes no changes. They remain everything you believe they should not be.
When people do find the courage to confront our cultural decay, they will not find success through governmental intervention. We elect officials to protect our national interests, not our spiritual interest. Morality cannot be legislated, no matter how much we try. Government cannot bring about good moral behavior, but God can. So, in order to stop the onslaught of cultural decay, we must be willing to allow God back into our cultural conversation and daily lives.
It begins, of course, with the acceptance of God. Acceptance of Him in our personal life, in our family, and quite frankly, in our church. We who have accepted Christ in our life have been given a task, clearly described in Matthew 28:19-20. “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” God has ordained the Church, which also means the local church, as the vehicle by which we bring in the lost. It is the local church that should be teaching them everything God has commanded. The Bible nowhere says we are to look to government for spiritual guidance.
In 1st Corinthians, chapter 12, Paul reminds us that, in the church the many are joined together as one. Together we become the Body of Christ where each part is necessary for the whole. The “members of the Body are not simply members individually of Christ the Head, but cohere to each other as in a natural body. The members are not ‘separate but equal,’ but rather participate in each other, such that ‘If one member suffers, all together suffer with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it.’” (12:26) God does not want us to make disciples without the help of the church. The Manual of my church says it well: “Commitment and clear purpose are important. But an intelligent and informed people following commonly agreed-upon practices and procedures advance the kingdom faster and enhance their witness for Christ.” Working together, as a church body, enhances our call to make disciples.
The author of this article is welcome to come visit and join our congregation at anytime. We will love her and join with her desire to make Christianity more loving and proactive concerning social decay. There is this warning though: we will not compromise our biblical values to accommodate every social cause that pretends to show love to the masses. We will continue to support our government, but look to our Savior for our salvation, and His Word for spiritual guidance, leaving to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.