“Don’t leave the church because of the people who hurt you. Nobody is perfect, only God”

I’ll explain why this comment is not only not helpful at all, but also very harmful.


The comment assumes we can’t tell the difference between people and toxic theology, it assumes our issues are with a few people who are outliers and misrepresented God, and we just seem to think that’s the totality of divinity. Which makes us appear unintelligent and petty.

But, that’s not the case at all. I didn’t leave because a few people hurt me in the name of God, in fact I stayed long enough to get hurt again, and again, and again, and again. Because it’s not a few bad apples hurting people in the name of God what we are dealing with.

Instead we are talking about systemic abuse due to toxic theology that is taught as righteousness.

Go to any white evangelical church today and conduct all the tests you must to ensure only those who are “good Christians,” remain. I guarantee you people will be harmed there.
Not because people just hurt people, not because Christians have good intentions but sometimes make mistakes; instead because the harm is caused due to indoctrination into toxic theology and a belief that their social and theological framework is not only good,

but also the only way to have a better world and be a decent human being (which is a superiority complex that isn’t based on facts but bias).

Assuming we left because some people caused harm is minimizing our commitment to our own faith too.

Most of the people I know who left their religion, did so after years of prayer, studying, and grappling with the really hard questions christianity fails to answer. They did because they couldn’t reconcile their commitment to this faith and maintain their integrity,

not because the faith is inherently good and some people are bad. Instead because being in it made us harm people too. We didn’t want to be complicit in harmful, abusive behavior toward ourselves and others. We didn’t leave because our faith was weak, or because we didn’t

spend enough time with Jesus. Instead because we took the whole faith thing so seriously that we saw the inconsistencies and abuses embedded in it, and we refused to continue to betray ourselves and others to please a good god that isn’t really good at all.

The phrase also infantilizes us, making it seem like we don’t understand the very obvious reality that nobody is perfect and makes it seem like our expectations of Christians are just too high and we are unreasonable. Like a young child expecting too much of parents.

Except nobody ever asked Christians to be perfect, but to stop causing harm. That’s a logical standard to have. However, it is also an impossible ask when your theological framework and moral standard call what’s harmful righteousness and love.

When bigotry is institutionalized in the church as god’s word and god’s way, the most perfect Christians will be the most harmful and abusive. Not because we expected them to be perfect and they failed, instead because they were indeed perfect in the eyes of their theology.

Lastly, this comment minimizes our choice to leave our religion as just an inability to forgive, or an unwillingness to extend grace. Neither is true. Not only do we not owe forgiveness to our abusers, but most all of us have actually forgiven, forgiveness simply doesn’t

equate with reconciliation. I can forgive people and still set strict boundaries and not want a relationship with them or their theology. And grace cannot override accountability, and consequences. That accountability is not just for the people but also the theology.

Consequences are grace, impunity doesn’t help anybody, silence to maintain a faux sense of harmony ensures more people are harmed. It is gracious and kind to hold a mirror and explain how something is harmful and abusive. Shrugging your shoulders is apathy, not grace.

More from Jo Luehmann

TW: suicidal ideation.

At the darkest days of the abuse I was being subjected to I decided to attend a conference for women in Los Angeles. I convinced my mother in law to pay for it because I couldn’t afford it. @ChristineCaine was preaching. I was desperate...

I wanted to die, I didn’t see a way out and I had tried everything. I imagined many ways to die daily. The most recurring one was throwing my car down a bridge I had to drive over every day. I never did it because my kids were in the car and I was afraid one of them would...


survive or I’d kill someone on the way down.

Christine spoke about honoring your pastors even when they weren’t great, she spoke of us expecting too much of pastors and how wrong that was. She said God would use our testimony if we submitted to our pastors.


She said “honor your pastors, God will honor you.” She said more about having disagreed with her pastors but she submitted and God honored her and now she’s blessed. How if they are faithfully serving God, we need to support them and not forfeit what God has for us.


I felt my heart drop into my stomach. I got up and went to the bathroom because I couldn’t breath and I felt like I was going to faint if I didn’t scream. I now know I was having a panic attack. I sat on the toilet w/my head between my legs, breathed and wept..

More from Religion

MDZS is laden with buddhist references. As a South Asian person, and history buff, it is so interesting to see how Buddhism, which originated from India, migrated, flourished & changed in the context of China. Here's some research (🙏🏼 @starkjeon for CN insight + citations)

1. LWJ’s sword Bichen ‘is likely an abbreviation for the term 躲避红尘 (duǒ bì hóng chén), which can be translated as such: 躲避: shunning or hiding away from 红尘 (worldly affairs; which is a buddhist teaching.) (
https://t.co/zF65W3roJe) (abbrev. TWX)

2. Sandu (三 毒), Jiang Cheng’s sword, refers to the three poisons (triviṣa) in Buddhism; desire (kāma-taṇhā), delusion (bhava-taṇhā) and hatred (vibhava-taṇhā).

These 3 poisons represent the roots of craving (tanha) and are the cause of Dukkha (suffering, pain) and thus result in rebirth.

Interesting that MXTX used this name for one of the characters who suffers, arguably, the worst of these three emotions.

3. The Qian kun purse “乾坤袋 (qián kūn dài) – can be called “Heaven and Earth” Pouch. In Buddhism, Maitreya (मैत्रेय) owns this to store items. It was believed that there was a mythical space inside the bag that could absorb the world.” (TWX)
First thread of the year because I have time during MCO. As requested, a thread on the gods and spirits of Malay folk religion. Some are indigenous, some are of Indian origin, some have Islamic

Before I begin, it might be worth explaining the Malay conception of the spirit world. At its deepest level, Malay religious belief is animist. All living beings and even certain objects are said to have a soul. Natural phenomena are either controlled by or personified as spirits

Although these beings had to be respected, not all of them were powerful enough to be considered gods. Offerings would be made to the spirits that had greater influence on human life. Spells and incantations would invoke their

Two known examples of such elemental spirits that had god-like status are Raja Angin (king of the wind) and Mambang Tali Arus (spirit of river currents). There were undoubtedly many more which have been lost to time

Contact with ancient India brought the influence of Hinduism and Buddhism to SEA. What we now call Hinduism similarly developed in India out of native animism and the more formal Vedic tradition. This can be seen in the multitude of sacred animals and location-specific Hindu gods
1. A)Yes , monotheism does mean there is one God & all other gods are false.

But your statement that it also mean " that God is my God " is misleading . It depends on the doctrine of that monotheistic religion .

From Islamic monotheism , Allah never said that he is Creator of Arabs . He is Creator if all in creation . So from a doctrinal pov your statement doens't hold up .

B ) how did u write Advaita = hindu philosophy ? Do u want me to mention difference between Advaita and dvaita ?

" There is no concept of shirk in Hinduism " . This is a red hearing , No One claimed Hinduism also has concept of shirk .

2. Tribal God ? In Islamic doctrine . No where it says Allah is Only God of Quraish tribe .

It was always " ilahi n Naas " , not to mention islamic was always about one's belief & not race/ethnicity , So it was never tribalistic in its Nature

& If someone's doctrine is to be Questioned for being tribalistic , It's Hinduism . It's a ethnico religion . Originated on the banks of Indus river , With special mentions to " Aryans " in 4 vedas.

Even after 4000 yrs , 95% of it's followers live in India .

You May Also Like

🌿𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒓 : 𝑫𝒉𝒓𝒖𝒗𝒂 & 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒏𝒖

Once upon a time there was a Raja named Uttānapāda born of Svayambhuva Manu,1st man on earth.He had 2 beautiful wives - Suniti & Suruchi & two sons were born of them Dhruva & Uttama respectively.
#talesofkrishna https://t.co/E85MTPkF9W

Now Suniti was the daughter of a tribal chief while Suruchi was the daughter of a rich king. Hence Suruchi was always favored the most by Raja while Suniti was ignored. But while Suniti was gentle & kind hearted by nature Suruchi was venomous inside.

The story is of a time when ideally the eldest son of the king becomes the heir to the throne. Hence the sinhasan of the Raja belonged to Dhruva.This is why Suruchi who was the 2nd wife nourished poison in her heart for Dhruva as she knew her son will never get the throne.

One day when Dhruva was just 5 years old he went on to sit on his father's lap. Suruchi, the jealous queen, got enraged and shoved him away from Raja as she never wanted Raja to shower Dhruva with his fatherly affection.

Dhruva protested questioning his step mother "why can't i sit on my own father's lap?" A furious Suruchi berated him saying "only God can allow him that privilege. Go ask him"